Welcome to Nukapedia!

Greetings, MildlyFootwear, and welcome to the Fallout Wiki! We appreciate your contributions, and we hope you will make more!


User Resources

If you have questions, you can ask in our forums, join the live chat, or ask one of our administrators or moderators. We hope you enjoy editing here and look forward to working with you!

Best regards, AllYourFavorites (talk) 17:59, April 1, 2019 (UTC)


Either edit the page correctly or don’t do it. Do not strike and add contrarian arguments to the page. No one is required to clean up after you. Furthermore, do not edit war. Great Mara (talk) 09:59, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

I edited the page that way to not remove information someone might have thought was correct while providing corrected information. Silently reverting changes because they are not "pretty enough" is inane of you, and calling it "edit warring" even moreso. MildlyFootwear (talk) 15:50, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

You restored a revert without getting input from the reverting editor. If you don’t like getting called out on it, then don’t do it. And again, no one here is required to clean up your mess nor should they be required to. Good day. Great Mara (talk) 16:20, April 15, 2019 (UTC)
You know, you're not wrong, but if you had used that little thing called a "note" that you can use when you make a change I would've known why it happened instead of assuming it was done due to incorrect information or on accident. As I already said, you could've said something here after reverting it. I'm not the one in the wrong here. MildlyFootwear (talk) 16:45, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

Just for posterity sake, I feel the need to mention I made one edit to the page Chance's knife, saw it was reverted with no contact to me and no note of any sort, reverted it and proceeded to contact Great Mara explaining why. By any sane definition, this does not count as an "editing war" and striking out information then correcting it afterwards is an admittedly not-very-pretty but still effective method of ensuring the spread of actually valid information. MildlyFootwear (talk) 21:39, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

By this wiki's definition, reverting without consensus on the article talk page or user talk pages is considered edit warring, so you can drop that attempt to spin your narrative right there. Furthermore, I am by no means required to take time out of my break to note you when I undo a bad edit. Period. Great Mara (talk) 23:02, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not spinning anything to my narrative, dude. I'm stating facts that anyone can check. Futhermore, the policies do not actually state it as edit warring. I will admit I did not read the policies, but as of this moment they say "In general, it is preferable to reach a consensus if an edit is reverted". It does not state it as edit warring, and as the edit was factually correct and was correcting information that used to be thought of as correct, it is not wrong to assume that it was reverted by someone who didn't know better. Even more so, any sane person would argue that if someone reverts a change, they do in fact need to explain themselves before throwing out terms like "edit war" and "mess you made". MildlyFootwear (talk) 08:18, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit late, but I'm going to note this order of events anyways. It was my edit -> reversion by Great Mara with no explanation whatsoever -> my reversion back to the factually correct explanation and explaining my actions on Great Mara's talk page. It may have not been preferable conduct, but it is hard to state as "wrong" and evemoreso difficult to argue that insulting was the proper course of action immediately after said events. MildlyFootwear (talk) 08:29, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of making a legitimate fight out of this. I am just stating my opinion, my actions, and the facts that support it. MildlyFootwear (talk) 08:37, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Hey Footwear. It's good that you decided to contact Mara when you wanted to find out why your edit was reverted; it's the proper way to resolve edit wars. I agree that Mara should have left an explanation of the revert; it could have saved both of you a lot of trouble. I understand your desire to undo an undo you feel was unjustified, so I really can't blame you for that. However, when there is a third undo you know that there's something wrong and you should stop editing the page (which is also true for Mara, of course). If you feel the talk page discussion isn't going anywhere, I would recommend contacting an admin or content moderator to help resolve the issue.
- FDekker talk 10:38, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, but I just want to note that there was not a third undo (edit: there was me reverting it to clean it up, though, so I see your point). He reverted it once, I readded the edit since no explanation was provided, he reverted it a second time and provided his explanation, then I tidied it up and added it a second time. If there had been a third, I would've been "okay, time to find someone else" (i.e. a moderator). Thanks for the mediation, however. I do appreciate it. MildlyFootwear (talk) 10:53, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

I would count the reverts by the other user as well. When someone reverts something it could be a mistake, so you can revert the revert. But when someone reverts your revert of the revert, that's confirmation that there is indeed a conflict. I wouldn't count your cleaning up as an issue or a revert; trying to address the problems someone else has with your edit is usually a good think though it is a bit risky because the other may misinterpret it as you continuing the edit war.
Mara said on Discord that the page looks fine now, though he hasn't verified its correctness in the GECK. I'll look at that after I've had lunch.
- FDekker talk 11:36, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
I want to address that once he provided his explanation I felt that there wouldn't be any issue in that change. If that is not the case, I'll accept that. I fully accept my first editing being seen as dirty, because it was, even if I don't really feel that it is wrong. My calculations match the formulas shown on the Fallout: New Vegas combat page, the conditions set in the GECK, and what I have observed ingame utilizing the console to add and remove various parks along with using "getav health" on my targets. I've created extensive calculators on Google Documents reflecting all of that, which can be found at and, so I am inclined to believe the information I've provided is correct. If you feel that it is not correct, I can retest it, though I am usually thorough. MildlyFootwear (talk) 11:46, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
It's not so much that I think the information is wrong as I just want to review it. To see if there's mistakes or uncertainties in there.

It's not really clear to me what the final multiplier is if you have Heavy Handed and Elijah's Ramblings and then use Chance's knife. Is it 90% of 60%, or something else? Also, the Elijah's Ramblings page says that the multiplier for standard weapons is 90% if you have both perks. How does the effect of Chance's knife tie into that?
- FDekker talk 14:25, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

On any melee weapon with just Elijah's Ramblings and Heavy Handed, the final multiplier will be 60%. The description says "-60%" which can be kind of deceptive, as what it actually does is multiply it by 0.4x, which you can see in FNVEdit and I believe the GECK. Every percentage bonus I know of right off is multiplicative, not additive, so if you have one buffing your damage by 100%, and one debuffing your damage by 50%, you'll wind up doing normal damage. MildlyFootwear (talk) 14:48, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
Also, the one on Elijah's Ramblings includes Better Criticals, which does result in a final modifier of 0.9x. I didn't check the page until just now, I can see why that might be a bit confusing considering the coincidence. MildlyFootwear (talk) 14:50, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
I see. So we should change Heavy Handed page so that it says "x40%" instead of "-60%"? I also think we can shorten the paragraph on the Chance's knife page to be more specifically about Chance's knife. Something along the lines of "In combination with the Heavy Handed perk, the crit multiplier is increased to 60% instead of 40%. With Elijah's Ramblings this multiplier is further increased to 90%." Or use factors instead of percentages, doesn't really matter. What do you think?
Ah you're right, I missed the Better Criticals one.
- FDekker talk 14:57, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
"-60%" is how it is phrased ingame, and is accurate if you know that percentages are almost if not always going to be multiplicative instead of additive. I can't think of a single case in Fallout: New Vegas where a percentage was additive instead of multiplicative, though I haven't personally tested everything. A note could be added saying something along the lines of "as with most percentages in Fallout: New Vegas, it functions as a multiplier, meaning that if you have another perk giving you +50% critical damage, the -60% will result in you dealing 60% of normal critical damage instead of 90%.", though. MildlyFootwear (talk) 15:24, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
As for the paragraph discussing perks on Chance's knife, I don't really have much of an opinion. I think it is better served with more information, but I'm one of those people who over-explains often. I don't really think anything after "1.5x-2x damage" would really be necessary. Only reason for that note is that a note saying "Elijah's Ramblings would offset the penalty from Heavy Handed" remained there for two years or so. I put it that way so someone wouldn't think it was removed on accident or somesuch. There isn't really anything separating the multipliers of said perks on Chance's knife from the rest of the melee weapons, it's true for all of them, though not necessarily true that they will do more damage with them. MildlyFootwear (talk) 15:36, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah if the game says "-60%" we should probably keep it that way.
I've rewritten some of the related perk pages so that they all reference each other (so that readers can easily navigate between them) and to make it sound less speculative. I'll admit that there's some information lost, so if you think I removed too much please tell me. After all, you put a lot of work into this and I don't want you to feel like it's not appreciated.
- FDekker talk 18:06, April 17, 2019 (UTC)
I see where you are going with it. Some information was lost or made inaccurate (Better Criticals and Just Lucky I'm Alive don't affect critical hit chance), but I can rectify it without changing it too much. I don't feel like it's not appreciated, I put most of the work in for myself first and foremost, though I did try to keep it as relevant as possible for others to get use out of. MildlyFootwear (talk) 00:21, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oops, my bad. Thanks for the correction :) I think the sections look great now. Rest assured, most edits don't require this much work and discussion :P
- FDekker talk 07:16, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

I can imagine. No worries, though. MildlyFootwear (talk) 07:29, April 19, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.