Why shouldn't a tier 3 weapon be more powerful than a tier 2 weapon, all real world arguments aside? You aren't making the pro sniper rifle argument look too enticing...

Trail Carbine, Sniper Rifle = Tier 2
Brush Gun, Anti-Mat Rifle = Tier 3

Then you might consider watching what you call people. Just because it's a word most here probably don't know the meaning to, doesn't mean your intent was not to insult me.

Frankly, if you are willing to listen to my opinion, I think you're showing a bias towards the weapon that you own. It would not be uncommon. We are not really disagreeing (well except the part where you said you can load .44mag to .308 velocities), we just don't seem to communicate very well to each other. Here's proof:

The round you listed in the edit of your last post actually has worse numbers than the Corbon I listed. Of course, I was listing figures at 1000 yards in support of my statement that you contested that .45-70 drops like a rock at range, while you listed 100 and 300 yards figures in rebuttal. I'm not certain that the only thing you were rebutting was the perception that .45-70 is not immensely powerful.

I reaaly don't like to get into pissing contests, so let's use the trite "agree to disagree" , huh?

-Gunny out.

Pissing contest? I think you are inventing quarrels that don't exist in your head. As far as the pedantic thing goes, if you are for such staunch "realism" that you'd want the numbers rejigged to push the damage mostly to the ammo at no real end game difference, I'd say it's an apt description. Sorry if that doesn't jibe with you.

I did, however, pose it in question form, you'll notice. So I don't know to what level the pedantic comment applies to you... but I'd definitely say it does to a degree - we are debating real world velocities on the official forum for an RPG, afterall.

pedantic: 1. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning. 2. Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner. 3. Being finicky or fastidious with language

Actually, according to Josh's post, there is like 7 tiers for weapons.

The fact that there is no modern militry weapon between a 45 damage .308 and 120 damage .50 tells you something isn't right.

Why do I get the feeling that you're passive-aggressively correcting me? :blink:

Also: good gods! I just glanced around to see what these "really hot loads" for the .45-70 are that the previous poster was on about. Insane! INSANE! Also not suitable to a lever action rifle. Seems like these are all aimed at really strong (newly manufactured) single shot rifles like the Ruger #1.

They can be fired from a Marlin 1895, and many are listed as having been. This is the "Brush Gun" in FO:NV. So, yes, they actually can be used in a levergun.

Because in the real world nearly every popular firearm is based on design principles...if not actual designs....that are over a century old. Lever Actions? 1860s. Revolvers? the concept is from the 1830s....the lockwork of today's revolvers has changed little from the late 19th century. Semi-autos? Browning's initial designs were from the turn of the 20th century. Pump action shotguns? 1890s. Bolt Actions? The 1898 Mauser action is pretty much the starting point for designers. Gun users are conservative in that they are mainly interested in what works and are reluctant to take a innovation at face value. And then there is the power of nostalgia....the only thing keeping Colt's '73 Army design in production for 140 years. Some military officers were dead set against bolt-action repeaters in the late 19th century because they felt that giving a soldier a 5 shot magazine would cause them to waste ammunition. Glocks had a uphill battle to be accepted when they came out....if liberals hadn't helpfully began spreading lies about how they were invisible to X-Ray machines they might never have been accepted by civilian shooters. Divergence or not, it wouldn't surprise me to see weapons in use in 2077 that were still based firmly on past designs and technology.

I'm just looking at it from a balancing perspective. It seems like you're going to move the weapons a bit more up in terms advantages, which means all others get left behind. Not to mention that it could potentially unbalance the game.
It's wish good luck and perseverance on this one.


They've now been moved up to be equals to guns, with some heavy (literal) disadvantages to still make guns the overall better choice.
More choice in weapons, easier to maintain, ammo is lighter (in general and per shot), easily available (though it is better for EW now than before). The inherent DT bypass was something they needed to make them more useful overall.

What I'm saying is that you guys are talking about what amounts to making weapons generally better and balancing them out against each other, yet neglect that all other weapon types need to be balanced out to.
Obviously you are having a nice discussion and what not and a lot is probably more for yourself than for any patch. I was just trying to say that for game balance some simpler solution would be in order. Tackling the problem per weapon would prevent other balancing work.

Actually, we are talking about how Sniper Rifle is/kinda/if at all, over nerfed. Or is there something wrong with the Cowboy Perk.

The things is, after the last patch, the only 'weaker' weapons are explosives and bottom tier EW. Top tier EW outperforms Guns, with small margin drawbacks.

I don't know, the low teir EW have some strong guns like the Incinerator. That blows out almost any gun available at the time for straight run and gun. :flamethrower: Once you hit level 7-8 the Flamer beats any SMG or shotgun. Just have to camp out at certain Merchants to get one. Plus you can normally score a Laser RCW fairly early. And Mid tier you can almost always score a Gauss Rifle. Main drawback to me is the weight of the ammo in HC and having to meta game to get the good weapons. But then you have to meta game to score a sniper rifle early to.

I'm not talking about design principles. I'm talking about technology developed in our reality being applied to Fallout's reality. This is wrong.

Take Worlock's example. He's using the fact that because of our advancement in technology and materials that allow for higher chamber pressures, gun designs that were withdrawn from widespread use were made popular again for sporting, if not in military service. He specifically cited the Marlin 1895, which he claims is the "Brush Gun" in New Vegas, despite the fact that this has never been stated anywhere.

Because the Marlin 1895 (and so far, *only* the Marlin 1895 or 1895-type guns) can be handloaded with some kind of super .45/70 round that has ridiculous (claimed) ballistic characteristics compared to the .308, he proceeds to apply this generally to the Sniper Rifle vs. Cowboy Rifle argument, in that this evidence makes the current balance of the different gun types fair enough.

This in spite of the fact that the .45/70 should be compared to the .50 cal, because the Brush Gun is in the same tier as the Anti Materiel Rifle. So why compare to the .45/70 to the .308 in the first place? The .308 rounds (all types) should be compared to the .44 rounds (magnum, SWC), because the sniper rifle belongs in the same tier as the Trail Carbine. And currently, the Trail Carbine does up to 50% more damage than the sniper rifle (refer to DAM vs. DT chart) with a higher rate-of-fire, despite being in the same tier. In fact, the sniper rifle stats-wise more closely compares with the Cowboy Repeater, a third tier Cowboy weapon.

EDIT: "First tier" or "Tier One" is what I define as "best." e.g. Brush gun = Tier one.

With regards to your post, I'm not disputing design principles here. I'm disputing why technology in our reality is being supplied as "conclusive" evidence? Just because we have been able to overcome the limitations of a particular design, why is this justification that the Fallout world has done the same? To clarify, the basic designs and their principles may be the same, but their implementation could be radically different. Both our universes may have sniper rifles, but our sniper rifles can be infinitely better. They have Power Armor, we have rudimentary mechanical exoskeletons - completely different.

It's one thing to say "we have it, so it may work this way in Fallout." It's something else entirely to say "well we have it, so Fallout most certainly has it." The Fallout world is still flying B-29s at the time of the Great War, a bomber that was phased out of service over fifty years ago in our reality. Clearly, the USAF of our universe is infinitely better than the USAF of theirs.

Actually, while magnum rifles and revolvers belong to the same tier as their NATO counter part, they suppose do more damage yet lack in other factors; however it isn't really the case. At the moment, magnum weapons are superior to their NATO counterpart even without Handloaded or Cowboy: .357 is superior to both 10mm and 5.56mm, .44 is superior to both 12.7mm and .308, and .45-70 just slap AMR silly with Hunting Revolver.

While I agree the magnums with both Handloaded and Cowboy should have clear edge over other gun types, Trail Carbine simply shouldn't have better all round against the sniper rifle; its 6 times more endurable, and almost 10% high RoF, weight 3lbs less before Sniper Rifle add mods, and holds 3 more rounds. The sniper rifle's advantage are 70% of Trail Carbine's spread (which we know matters a little), reload speed (which isn't an issue while sniping or behind cover) and silenced (only good when used inappropriately).

Uh, first off, I only chimed in on the .45-70 vs .308 debate, I didn't start it... So read the whole thread before swinging accusations around like a blunt weapon. I'd also love for you to point out where I applied this discussion to game balance... I was just pointing out that real world magnum handloads can eclipse a .308 if loaded sufficiently hot.

Second, all of the weapons in FO:NV use smokeless powder including the .45-70. It doesn't have a seperate black powder for recipes. The .45-70 SWC has a ton more powder than a standard round, so it is more than fair to compare FO:NV's .45-70 SWC to those hand loads I linked.

I don't really care what they do, balance-wise, the game is too easy on VHARD as it is. I was here to respond to the bear takedown index and other graphs posted.

EDIT: I kinda pointed out on the last page that the Brush Gun and Sniper Rifle were of different tiers to someone else.
and the brush gun looks like 90% identical to a marlin 1895G, which is a weapon developed in the 1970's.

It's fact, not accusation. Comparisons were made between the .45-70 and the .308, among other rounds, to put things in context. The TKO chart did not list only .308 and .45/70 gov. Then you jumped in, making direct comparisons between the .308 vs. .45-70 gov.

Furthermore, handloads never factored into the initial discussion, because .46ACP was talking about base DAM, which is determined by "normal"/factory rounds in Fallout. Handload stats are factored in after as DAM modifiers, which is what .46ACP was trying to explain to you.

The fact that "real world magnum handloads can eclipse a .308 if loaded sufficiently hot" is irrelevant with respect to base DAM. Bolded for emphasis.



The TKO index was suggested as something that could be used to assign basic DAM values to various rifles. Again, your point about handloads, while informative, is irrelevant.



So 90% identical means identical? If its not explicitly stated, we shouldn't make the assumption.

Furthermore, the fact that its a gun developed in the 1970s has no relevance. There is nothing to suggest that the Fallout universe has our technology - otherwise, they wouldn't be flying B-29s in the Air Force.

EDIT: That last part is a lie. B-29s weren't flying in the Fallout Air Force. My mistake, but point still stands.

The box of 45-70 ammo actully says 300 grain on it.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/.45-70_Gov%27t

The timeline actually branches off shortly after WWII at the latest. The Fallout world stays largely identical to ours through the fifties, though major changes start showing up by the sixties--in 1961, Captain Carl Bell of the United States Space Agency became the first man in space, for example, and the moon landings occurred at different times with different people. By the seventies, it's completely off the rails, though there was apparently an anti-war movement and a group referred to as "hippies" at some point during the hundred and some-odd years between the timeline divergence and the Great War. (Heck, they might not have shown up until the 2070s, during the US-China war that ended in the nukes dropping.) The US might still have wound up in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean it was at the same time, for the same reasons, or using the same equipment as in the real world.

My thoughts on timeline (specifically military technology) divergence:

- The Great War that destroyed everything happened in 2077, 66 years after our present date. Fallout 3 and NV happens in 2281. The Vietnam war hippies therefore cannot be the same hippies referenced in Fallout 3
- B-29 bombers and This Machine (the M1 Gerand) are the only two items off the top of my head that appears both in our reality and the Fallout universe. Thus, the Fallout timeline branches off sometime after World War II
- Supporting the above is the fact that a B-29 crashed into Lake Mead in July, 1948, in both our reality and the Fallout universe.
- Artifacts and posters at Nellis AFB, Adams AFB, and Rivet City aircraft carrier suggests that the primary fighter in the United States military was the F-80 Shooting Star, which entered service in 1945. Given that only the P-51, the F-80 Shooting Star and the B-29 bomber all make appearances (either as aircraft wrecks or in recruitment posters), but nothing of later aircraft designs (specifically, the F-86 Sabre), this suggests that the Fallout timeline branched off sometime BEFORE the Korean War in the 1950s.
- Technology in the Fallout world appears to be retro-futuristic - the type of future technology people imagined before the invention of the revolutionary computer microchip/microprocessor in our world in 1958.

If you have anything to add, please do. Otherwise, these points suggests that the Fallout timeline branches off prior to the Korean War. Thus, any of our tech from the past 60 years should not automatically be "applied" to the Fallout world.



Citation needed. Where does it "officially" state that FO:NV contains only smokeless powder? How are you speaking with such definity?

Going back in the tread, you said this: "It's pretty safe to assume that we are using smokeless loads in FO:NV considering hunters were using smokeless .45-70 loads as early as the 1980's."

That's your proof? That *we* have been using such loads as early as the 1980s?



Fallout doesn't make that distinction, why should we? Because it supports your position?



I know it's your favorite gun and all, but just because it looks 90% the same as a Marlin 1895 doesn't mean the gun won't explode in your face when the chamber gives out at higher pressures because it looks like the Marlin but can't shoot the same handloads.

You guys are right, if you look at the FO timeline it does indeed diverge at around 1950. As for your arguments about "modern materials" and such I would say your pretty safe to say they've been developed or have even better stuff. Just as a side effect to the development of Cold fusion and plasma and laser weapons. Plus we have materials that can stop most high end man portal small arms and still keep a PA suit under what 20-50 LBS?

I would also say it's safe to say we're using smokeless powder as you never see any smoke from your shooting.

Since we can recycle those 'rifle powder" between .45-70 and .308 in game, it is save to assume it is smokeless.

Now I am not sure if the .45-70 in TKO is a "modern" smokeless load or a classic black powder load, but it is safe to assume it is "equivalent to classic pressure" amount of smokeless powder.

You are absolutely corrrect valkebus. ALL figures I have presented throughout the entirety of my posts here have ALWAYS been using commercial ammunition loads, availavle today, and therefore smokeless powder. It would be pretty stupid to compare a smokeless round to a black powder round, wouldn't it? And as I have stated so many times, I have taken great pains to try to represent the BASIC AMMO in the game by choosing very middle of the road, common loads and bullet weights. What we are finding is factory boxed ammo that was manufactered in quite some quantity, not some oddball off the charts special freaky deaky load someone made in their garage. I will attemp to get this thread back on track as soon as I get back from dropping my son at work. I intend to use the metrics I have proposed to make a comparision of the .44 Trail Carbine and the .308 Sniper/Hunting rifles using base ammo. I will post as soon as I have the numbers, unless it melts my slide rule and abacus.

-Gunny out.

OK I'm running into a bit of a problem here. Looking at the muzzle velocities and energy, the .44 is looking real bad against the .308. I'm working on factoring in terminal ballistics, ie: wound size, permanent cavity, etc... if I can, but the problem is I wanted to come up with base damage numbers at expected engagement ranges. I first thought 200y. The numbers were horribly skewed to the .308. Then I went to 100y, even though this is much closer than sniper engagements, even in fallout, and they were still bad. Should I use muzzle munbers for basing my calculations off of? I really don't want to, but if I don't it's gonna end up with the .308 having much higher damage and much greater DT bypass than .44. Is everyone OK with that?

-Gunny out.

How much higher?

The basic damage-per-second for both weapons should be at least comparable on paper (as they are weapons in the same tier, as we define it). If the difference in DAM cannot be somewhat equalized by DPS (and also AP/VATS cost), then I personally think it may be a bit too much.

What was wrong with using TKO, which had both within 1 point of eachother @ 400 yards. Didn't gimp leverguns enough for you?

My point is that the gun powder can be some super type of gun powder for all we know. And the materials used for construction could be made from Nth metal. The point is that we don't know, Fallout doesn't make the distinction/doesn't go into it, so we should not be adding an extra layer of complexity to this and put THAT much consideration into the powder that's being used.

Worlock references a particular gun that uses a particular set of technologies. This gun exists only in our world, which he claims is the "Brush Gun," From this specific case, he applies it generally in all his arguments against the .308/Sniper Rifle needing a buff or not. I think it's certainly suggestive, but that it's wrong to use that as *conclusive* evidence, as he does and outright say that things are currently balanced. Things are currently NOT balanced - the Brush Gun destroys the AMR, and the Trail Carbine destroys the sniper.