FYI: Weapon Awareness

Hello.

I've been latelly observing the gun market to see what values sit at on most guns, comparing guns aswell to have a more accurate idea of what a fair valuation would be for a gun always regarding its eco, dps and range, along if its laser/blp pistol/rifle.

Curiosity killed me so i started browsing all sort of weapons and i stumbled upon what i believed to be one of the best mid range guns out there, even tho is unique and in the possession of a person i know for long.



So these were the stats, I tought, given the low lvl req, range, dps, this is was a serious weapon, but i found it fishy as the other versions of the smuggler guns got far less eco than this one, so it'd make this one way different.
After getting to sources and all, I got in touch with ark team, since they are open about the stats on their weapons stats so players can calc their eco and have a clarity of what the guns really are.
Mathias did the kindness of fixing the values



The person before either did a wrong eco test or just attempted to put out wrong stats to possibly value the gun higher .
I used the m83 because it was what i could possibly compare that gun to (even tho the mad gap on lvl requirement).

I Know the Law50 smuggler is unique, or at least i believe so, but this makes it far different of what it has been stated in the past about the 2.95 base eco.

This totally changes the eyes that you put and valuate this gun and possibly others.

Keep an eye out, this might've been a small example of more guns with wrong values.
Don't fear asking around to your friends and people that are reliable sources

Thats a huge difference, wondering about the 2.4 dpp Piron once then? are they perhaps better than advertised?

Arangar said:

Thats a huge difference, wondering about the 2.4 dpp Piron once then? are they perhaps better than advertised?

Click to expand...

yea the diference is quite significant,
I wonder the exact same right now as some stuff seems to be tested by unreliable sources or people just did it wrong (happens)

I thought that gun was too good to be true versus the other guns in the same lineage. Well done + Rep.

This is a good post. I have noticed errors in the numbers on several items on Entropedia. As it is a wiki with user entered data, you should never fully trust the numbers there.

e-lite said:

This is a good post. I have noticed errors in the numbers on several items on Entropedia. As it is a wiki with user entered data, you should never fully trust the numbers there.

Click to expand...

These are the weapons in question:


Sure they are OP for their lvl but is the eco really that bad?

Arangar said:

These are the weapons in question:

Sure they are OP for their lvl but is the eco really that bad?

Click to expand...

Prolly its the drawback of trying to get dps for low lvl i think
I'd test one if i had my hands on it

Sometimes innocent mistakes; sometimes... not so much.

The arsonistic chip TEN edition was "corrected" several times on entropedia. I think i posted a similar thread to this at some point. There are some indications that some items have had stats actually change somewhere along the way, though.

Doer said:

Sometimes innocent mistakes; sometimes... not so much.

The arsonistic chip TEN edition was "corrected" several times on entropedia. I think i posted a similar thread to this at some point. There are some indications that some items have had stats actually change somewhere along the way, though.

Click to expand...

if i get my hands on one i'll gladly do a test

When buying any gun you can't always trust wiki. Two guns I found which were wrong:

Modified LR32: had lower eco and was changed
ML-35 Mentor Edition: had better eco and was changed

Arangar said:

Thats a huge difference, wondering about the 2.4 dpp Piron once then? are they perhaps better than advertised?

Click to expand...

Pirons are this bad, yes.

This is why they should add actual accurate decay numbers on weapons as a tool-tip. For example if you were to hover the mouse on "durability" of a weapon. It would show exact how much decay it does per shot in PEC.

This would get rid of the hassle of decay testing and "false ECO" stats could be easily corrected, thus killing two birds in one stone.

Entropedia could then be made very accurate and up to date.

I have never grasped why they haven't done this yet.

Sub-Zero said:

This is why they should add actual accurate decay numbers on weapons as a tool-tip. For example if you were to hover the mouse on "durability" of a weapon. It would show exact how much decay it does per shot in PEC.

This would get rid of the hassle of decay testing and "false ECO" stats could be easily corrected, thus killing two birds in one stone.

Entropedia could then be made very accurate and up to date.

I have never grasped why they haven't done this yet.

Click to expand...

No one actively developing on Entropedia. I have tried every few months since April 2014, but the guy who is doing it for Witte keeps saying something is coming and every time I state I am going to stand up a completely separate system, he comes out of the wood work trying to see where I am at.

Sub-Zero said:

This is why they should add actual accurate decay numbers on weapons as a tool-tip. For example if you were to hover the mouse on "durability" of a weapon. It would show exact how much decay it does per shot in PEC.

This would get rid of the hassle of decay testing and "false ECO" stats could be easily corrected, thus killing two birds in one stone.

Entropedia could then be made very accurate and up to date.

I have never grasped why they haven't done this yet.

Click to expand...

Agree, the stats should be in each individual item ingame.
Its not like efficiency in terms of dpp is a new awareness among the players.

When I first got the LAW-50 Smuggler, fruit tests were done by two separate people...
both results the same, 2.950 was the base eco!

I'll do my own test, and I'll contact Ark officials to find out what's going on!

Tycoon said:

When I first got the LAW-50 Smuggler, fruit tests were done by two separate people...
both results the same, 2.950 was the base eco!

I'll do my own test, and I'll contact Ark officials to find out what's going on!

Click to expand...

Hey man
Thanks for posting
THis was the example i saw tho.

I think the values always been the same for long, because if you look at other laws, all got similar eco. and that one because was unique, ppl would set the value they'd want cos there was no way to test otherwise.

It is still a nice gun, sick dps for the lvl and not too horrible eco, but not as good as it was said out there sadly

Okay faulty memory: the thread i started earlier this year was due to confirmed observations of the SIB being changed on a weapon, but i remembered it as being weapon eco stats because there were several revisions of entropedia values.

I mentioned the arsonistic TEN because there were several reputable people that tested it at different times and yet got different stats so i wonder if it had the decay changed at some point. Details fuzzy but maybe it's all in the history on entropedia.

For a very long time both the imk2 and aimk2 had 0.252 listed in entropedia as the decay. Then i discovered that the imk2 actually had 0.255 decay (whether it was changed or just incorrectly tested, i don't know). At that point i assumed that the aimk2 would also have 0.255 decay. Strangely enough, it had 0.250 decay (think skippie tested it but don't recall).

Doer said:

Okay faulty memory: the thread i started earlier this year was due to confirmed observations of the SIB being changed on a weapon, but i remembered it as being weapon eco stats because there were several revisions of entropedia values.

I mentioned the arsonistic TEN because there were several reputable people that tested it at different times and yet got different stats so i wonder if it had the decay changed at some point. Details fuzzy but maybe it's all in the history on entropedia.

For a very long time both the imk2 and aimk2 had 0.252 listed in entropedia as the decay. Then i discovered that the imk2 actually had 0.255 decay (whether it was changed or just incorrectly tested, i don't know). At that point i assumed that the aimk2 would also have 0.255 decay. Strangely enough, it had 0.250 decay (think skippie tested it but don't recall).

Click to expand...

If this is true Doer then that means MA is changing item stats without telling the player base and this should not be allowed. Hence why they need to state item decay in item information.

M Rufen Power said:

If this is true Doer then that means MA is changing item stats without telling the player base and this should not be allowed. Hence why they need to state item decay in item information.

Click to expand...

Or maybe players use it as a tactic to defend their product.
The Law-50 is an example of that imo,
If you compare it to other guns of the same line of gun, the 20 / 30 / 40, all have about the same eco, even tho the 50 is unique it wouldnt make that much sense be THAT diferent

M Rufen Power said:

If this is true Doer then that means MA is changing item stats without telling the player base and this should not be allowed. Hence why they need to state item decay in item information.

Click to expand...

SURPRISE!

Doer said:

I mentioned the arsonistic TEN because there were several reputable people that tested it at different times and yet got different stats so i wonder if it had the decay changed at some point. Details fuzzy but maybe it's all in the history on entropedia.

Click to expand...

The problem with MF is do u test it with or without calculating the difference the 2% implant makes? and maybe u have an L implant taking 10% and u made the error of calculating with a standard 2% implant.

I'm pretty certain I did an arson test at some point, but if it was incorrect it was due to my stupidity not any desire to mislead

M Rufen Power said:

If this is true Doer then that means MA is changing item stats without telling the player base and this should not be allowed. Hence why they need to state item decay in item information.

Click to expand...

I think it's more than likely that Skippie tested it incorrectly, as it's an extremely minor amount.

slither said:

The problem with MF is do u test it with or without calculating the difference the 2% implant makes? and maybe u have an L implant taking 10% and u made the error of calculating with a standard 2% implant.

I'm pretty certain I did an arson test at some point, but if it was incorrect it was due to my stupidity not any desire to mislead

Click to expand...

Yeah that leads to a lot of confusion but there were reported values that couldn't have been due to that common mistake.

sachi.mk2 said:

I think it's more than likely that Skippie tested it incorrectly, as it's an extremely minor amount.

Click to expand...

Could be; it's been a long time and it may not have been Skippie. However i don't think there's any doubt when it comes to the S.4 SIB change which is why i made a thread about it at the time.

More interesting is the Ancient Adjusted MKV: which has a lot lower decay than the Adjusted MKV. Whats more, the Adjusted MKV never existed pre-gold and should never have had an ancient version; that's why it's range and reload is the same as the normal one. One owner managed to 'fool' MA into making his gun an ancient version with a lower decay. Or so I was told....

Click to expand...

Hmm interesting.

Manique said:

Or maybe players use it as a tactic to defend their product.
The Law-50 is an example of that imo,

Click to expand...

I can assure you that is not the case...

Girts won the LAW-50 as an event prize, I reserved it for purchase before he won it. I have been the only owner of this gun since day 1, and I have always made it clear to the public this weapon was not for sale! (and is still not for sale)

The original fruit tests were done by 2 separate people who I let borrow the gun... the second fruit test was done to check to make sure the first one was done correctly after seeing the eco was 2.950... both people got the exact same result, 2.950!

I didn't do the test, and I didn't enter the info in Entropedia... and I didn't have anyone enter false info to inflate the value of my gun! There was no reason for anyone to do so!

Either both people did the test wrong in the same way and somehow managed to come up with the exact same result (which I highly doubt), or the stats were changed at some point!