Talk:Acrid/@comment-204.77.52.236-20130729175632/@comment-11753608-20130729212108

The damage calculator isn't wrong. It confirms what you are stating here. The damage calculator is nothing more than a database using the exact formulas used in the game to calculate damage. Don't hate.

As for the 4 ticks thing, I am under the impression that this may have been a mistated comment in the notes for the weapon that has since been corrected. Really what this underscores is that people need to effing check information before they go changing wiki posts. At least this error isn't as bad as people claiming that weapons have inherent penetration - none of them do. Some guns pin but none inherently penetrate. Yet, this comment gets thrown in almost every new gun description at least once. Eventually it gets corrected and balance is brought back to the force.

As people have noted in the despair page, the effectiveness of these weapons is situational despite the eventual damage of Acrid being higher. Example, if you are fighting mobs that Despair can kill in one hit but takes Acrid 2-3 ticks to kill, you ARE going to hose them down faster with Despair because the initial damage of that weapon is almost twice as much as the Acrid. You just are. If you are fighting a boss, Acrid definitely is your gun between the two.

Although the comment above regarding Flux being a distant second apparently is unaware that 1) Flux ammo efficiency sucks ass and is an average weapon at best, and 2) Lanka has recently been buffed, deos 250 serrated blade damage which also ignores armor, and can now one-shot a number of bosses if potatoed and forma'ed.

In the end, the debate will rage until I can update the calculator to account for fire rates and give some dps calculation but this is not really a priority right now since I have maxed google docs information restrictions with it anyway. Once I find a better solution that google docs, expect to see a HP, Shields, and "Hits to kill" section and a DPS function.