Talk:Weapons
| Talk archives | |
| Archive 1 | |
Contents
Make Inspect Animation Gifs for every weapon
I thought this might be a fitting addition to the galleries of every weapon in TF2. They are tied exclusively to each weapon and though some may have similar or even the same animations they are unique elements to weapons that can do a better job of showing off what they are in game then the 3D Model Project. The only thing that you would have to figure out is how exactly they should be shown off, either as a transparent gif or gif in white space of them playing or on any map. I would prefer if we could do them inside of a map because it makes it a lot more accessible for people to contribute to and shows how light may reflect off them in standard settings. I think a few good candidates would be tr_target, tr_karma_wiki, or the first spawn room of cp_5gorge.
This would be a lot of work I imagine because there is I believe 200+ weapons in the game. I cannot guarantee I will make significant contribution to such a thing, but I wanted to put the idea forward. Also while we're on the subject should I create a page that revolves around "inspect"? ![]()
![]()
22:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is probably more what the Weapon Demonstration is for, GIFs also don't really work well on the Wiki. It's not realistic, unfortunately.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 22:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can make it on your own userspace, I don't really see what it would really cover outside of what's mentioned here, but if it ends up looking good I'm not against an article about that.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 22:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- You can make it on your own userspace, I don't really see what it would really cover outside of what's mentioned here, but if it ends up looking good I'm not against an article about that.
- Speaking of GIFs: they will not work properly as GIFs if they are massive enough. They will be massive in any way in terms of WikiMedia.
Liverfull
Talk | Contributions 22:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking of GIFs: they will not work properly as GIFs if they are massive enough. They will be massive in any way in terms of WikiMedia.
- If you were going to do it you could make transparent gifs of the animations in HLMV that way they would be consistent with the first person perspective images that are already in the gallery. But I sorta agree with swood that in a lot of cases this is already going to be included in the related weapon demonstration video. Gifs only play when you click on the image, the thumbnails aren't animated, so it would end up being sorta clunky. I don't think there needs to be gifs for every animation but a page explaining the feature could be good if there's enough content to make it worthwhile. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 22:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Third-person images for weapons
Are you a newer TF2 player who wants to see how a certain weapon would look in your favorite mercenary's hands before going through the effort of purchasing or crafting it? Are you tired of having to type sv_cheats 1; thirdperson in offline mode just to get a good full look at your new guns? Introducing Third-Person Weapon Renders! (Video)
"Why make third-person renders for weapons?"
TF2 has hundreds of weapons, but very few means of actually seeing them in third-person outside of loadout screens (and the HUD if Use Player Model in Player Class HUD is enabled in the Advanced Options menu, though not every player is aware of this option). Third-person renders would provide a facilitated means of viewing weapons in their natural player-held state, without having to resort to utilizing an external model viewing tool. If cosmetics have both close-up and third-person renders on the wiki, so, too, should weapons!
"How should the images be rendered?"
Any renders should feature an aesthetically-pleasing third-person view of the weapon being held by the appropriate mercenary while in the idle pose associated with that weapon. This page should serve as a general guide. Cosmetics should be completely avoided, with the primary focus of the images being on the weapons.
- RED and BLU teams: Renders should be created for both teams, especially for weapons that change color/appearance depending on which team the player is currently on.
- Weapon styles: Renders should be created for any and all weapon styles (for example, the Flying Guillotine's "Thirsty" and "Thirstier" styles).
- Weapon reskins: Any reskins (such as the Lugermorph) should also receive third-person renders.
- All class/multi-class weapons: Any all class weapons (such as the Saxxy) and multi-class weapons (such as the Shotgun) should receive third-person renders for every class that can use them.
- Weapon variants (ie Festive, Botkiller, Australium, etc.): Ideally, these should also receive third-person renders, but I personally would save these for last...
$ɪʀ ₱ʀɪᴢᴇ (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
No. Personally, i don't see the need for that. And i never used thirdperson
Liverfull
Talk | Contributions 02:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- 3D-images exist, which can handle your idea quite well.
Liverfull
Talk | Contributions 02:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- The 3D images merely showcase the weapons in an isolated state as opposed to how they actually appear in-game (being held by the mercs). I would imagine a noticeable percentage of users would enjoy, for instance, seeing how the Heavy actually wears his boxing gloves, or how the Pyro equips his jetpack, rather than solely view them floating in a blank space. $ɪʀ ₱ʀɪᴢᴇ (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- 3D-images exist, which can handle your idea quite well.
Oppose I don't see the point. Just feels like unnecessary bloat. This would also already be viewable as part of the weapon demonstration video on every page. I don't think it's really necessary to have dedicated images for it and I struggle to see how it's worth cluttering up the pages with images for something so minor. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 02:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Having isolated 2D, 3D, and first-person views of a weapon isn't considered bloat, but a third-person image of it actually being held is? Also, going by your logic, any weapon images would be considered "bloat" because you could just watch the videos and see how they look there. $ɪʀ ₱ʀɪᴢᴇ (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest I personally don't really like the first-person views either, it's just standardized. 3D images show the weapon itself in third person and the demonstration video shows it being held in third person. I just don't think it'd really that beneficial and wouldn't look good. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 14:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest I personally don't really like the first-person views either, it's just standardized. 3D images show the weapon itself in third person and the demonstration video shows it being held in third person. I just don't think it'd really that beneficial and wouldn't look good. Mediarch
- Having isolated 2D, 3D, and first-person views of a weapon isn't considered bloat, but a third-person image of it actually being held is? Also, going by your logic, any weapon images would be considered "bloat" because you could just watch the videos and see how they look there. $ɪʀ ₱ʀɪᴢᴇ (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- The video is great and the idea is neat, but I don't see much purpose for it. Cosmetic items feature the class because they alter the appearance and that's their sole purpose. I can see a full-body image of wearable items or items that alter appearance being useful (such as Medic backpacks, the Gunboats, maybe the Demoman shields). Images of every class holding their weapons just does not serve the same purpose. Not to mention this would expand the gallery by a lot of images for some weapons, like the Panic Attack having 16 new images (4 classes with 4 images each). For the Scattergun this would be 26 images alone (2 x default, 2 x festive version, 2 x festivized, 2 x Australium, 2 x Australium Festivized, 2 x each Botkiller for a total of 16). The first person images show the weapon as they appear in first person so users can get a sense of how they look when playing (as viewmodel can affect performance).
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 15:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any difference between having a gallery with 20 first-person images and one with 20 third-person images, but I am beginning to understand each of your concerns of massive gallery sections that take up half the articles' page lengths. Therefore, I have taken some time to generate a few possible solutions:
- Separate first- and third-person gallery tables/tabs: I've taken notice that for some weapons, such as the Knife and the Eyelander, their gallery images are neatly arranged within tables, complete with tabs designed specifically for viewing the different individual weapon variants. I propose that all first-person and third-person weapon renders receive either their own tables, or separate tabs within the same table.
- Non-team colored weapons only rendered for RED team: Pretty self-explanatory; any weapon whose design is the same regardless of team would only receive images for their appearance on RED team, as images for their BLU team counterparts could be considered superfluous. This constraint alone would cut down on the number of third-person images by nearly half.
- No weapon variants, only default models: This is far from ideal in my humble opinion, but renders could be limited to only the weapons' default, standard appearances (meaning no images will be made for Festive, Australium, Botkiller, etc. variants). This would restrict most weapons to featuring just one or two third-person images in their galleries.
- Only specific weapons receive third-person images: While I strongly believe that no weapons should receive special treatment, if so desired, only select weapons that are borderline cosmetic in nature (such as the Quick-Fix and Vaccinator's backpacks) would receive third-person renders, though drawing the line as to what weapons should and should not receive third-person images seems like it would be drastically more difficult than simply allowing them all to have them.
- $ɪʀ ₱ʀɪᴢᴇ (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any difference between having a gallery with 20 first-person images and one with 20 third-person images, but I am beginning to understand each of your concerns of massive gallery sections that take up half the articles' page lengths. Therefore, I have taken some time to generate a few possible solutions:
Game mode specific changes
A weapon like the Concheror has a game mode-specific change, similar to many other weapons, and it's mentioned on the article. However, many other game mode-specific changes are not mentioned i.e., Zombie Infection and Versus Saxton Hale. I propose we create a new section called 'Game mode-specific changes' and put them all there. I don't see a reason why we would mention the MvM ones but not the others.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 00:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Seems like a solid idea to me. Things like Heavy doing less damage to MVM tanks with miniguns is pretty important to know but doesn't seem to be documented on the Minigun page anywhere. Mediarch
♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 01:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think a new section is needed; just a short, one sentence paragraph (like the one in the Concheror's description about its change in MvM) is enough. – BrazilianNut (Talk) 03:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think a short paragraph would do the job, unless we get a new mode that change every single weapon's attribute every Summer/Halloween. Profiteer the tryhard (talk|contribute) 04:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- A short paragraph for a weapon like the Minigun would end up in something similar to:
- "The Minigun deals 75% less damage to Tanks in Mann vs. Machine, deals 40% less damage to Zombies in Zombie Infection, and deals 30% less damage when Crit-boosted to Saxton Hale in Versus Saxton Hale."
- Imo this sentence is just not good to read. Having it be as a bulleted list would be much better, be much more adjustable to the future, could possibly also include MONOCULUS, Merasmus, and Sentry Gun resistances if we make it a 'Notes' subsection of the Damage and function times. I think it's too important to be shoved down below into the regular Notes section, but adding it to the lead itself is a bit too much especially when we know that more of these weapon-affecting changes can be added in any update (and Heavy's Miniguns are essentially always going to be modified due to their insanely high damage).
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 10:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- Imo this sentence is just not good to read. Having it be as a bulleted list would be much better, be much more adjustable to the future, could possibly also include MONOCULUS, Merasmus, and Sentry Gun resistances if we make it a 'Notes' subsection of the Damage and function times. I think it's too important to be shoved down below into the regular Notes section, but adding it to the lead itself is a bit too much especially when we know that more of these weapon-affecting changes can be added in any update (and Heavy's Miniguns are essentially always going to be modified due to their insanely high damage).
Listing per-weapon MvM upgrades
In my opinion, the current Upgrade Station table does not do a very good job if you're trying to find which upgrades a single weapon can have. I think having individual tables on each weapon article listing the MvM upgrades, similar to how we have Strange ranks/parts listed on there, could be a neat addition especially with the upcoming MvM update.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 10:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree Good idea! Profiteer the tryhard (talk|contribute) 11:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Huntsman arrows afterburn damage
I'm not sure, but it seems the Huntsman and Fortified Compound afterburn damage values listed are not correct. Since the afterburn is 4 dmg per tick shouldn't it be 80 damage for 10 sec duration?Frozen Cake (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
- It's 4 damage per tick and it lasts for 16 ticks (8 seconds), based on the weapon demonstration. These are likely the values from pre-Jungle Inferno that just haven't been updated as there's no single unified place that these values are taken from.
| s | GrampaSwood
(talk) (contribs) 13:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)