Poll: damage or fire rate

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Ha, it really depends on the game. If we're talking about more realistic shooters, or something like Left 4 Dead where zombies go down easy, then I'll take RoF over outright damage. However, if the higher rate of fire means a huge drop in accuracy I'll take something a little slower but more precise. If we're talking games like Timesplitters, where all the baddies can take a few hits and keep on coming, then I'll take higher damage of shotties or rockets.

 

[Flac00]

Damage. I hate running out of ammo.

what if you had almost unlimited ammo?

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Area of effect and knockback... but I'll just say damage. Close enough.

Okay, I'm a sucker for those kinds of weapons too. Grenades, mines, gravity hammers, etc. are tons of fun.

 

[Nemesis729]

I like having a balance between the two

 

[Drakmorg]

Damage.
If I have to hit it more than once, I'm not hitting hard enough.

 

[Popadoo]

That's a vague question. If the damage you do with a weapon with a slow RoF is way more than the damage you can do with a weapon with a fast RoF in the time it takes the slow RoF weapon to reload/take another shot/ect, then damage. And visa versa.

 

[Jodah]

One shot one kill!

 

[Skarovich]

I like picking the mid/high-damage low-ROF machine guns. Lots of ammo so you rarely have to reload, but with a controllable rate of fire. In most games I've played, the M60 typically falls in this category. Also great for suppressive fire if the need arises.

That, or a semi-auto rifle of some sort.

 

[FinalHeart95]

I like a nice mix of the two. For example, in Halo, I prefer the DMR greatly over an assault rifle. However, I hate snipers.
Usually it depends too. In a more realistic game where it takes less damage to kill, I like rate of fire. If you hit the guy he'll probably die. I almost never like an extremely high damage weapon though because if I miss I have to wait a good 5 seconds to shoot again. Of course, this exception lies with distance from enemy (shotgun) or what my enemy even is (vehicle/soldier).

There are too many variables depending on the situation.

 

[DragonBorn96]

Fire Rate, a high fire rate can compensate for relativaly low damage and so can dish the damage quicker. They all die anyway so how the gun goes *click* *boom* doesn't really matter

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

Rate of fire is for schmucks who can't hit in the first shot.

 

[sora91111]

I usually like a combo of the two, but if I had to choose it's damage.

 

[One of Many]

NEVER ENUFF DAKKA!!!

 

[sleekie]

There's often other factors. Damage makes ammo more efficient, ROF makes on-hit chances come up more often.

All other things being equal, I like damage. ROF-centric weapons almost always mean taking counterfire. I'd rather deliver one huge hit and then evade/take cover if the target survived, which it might not after a heavy hit anyway.

There's really too many potential factors. I'm purposely ignoring my poor aim.

 

[Tirnor]

Depends on the game type and if there is an accuracy adjustment due to character stats.

Online FPS - Fire Rate, due to you bunny hopping CS bastards. (You know who you are.)

Offline FPS - Damage, due to the easy of keeping a mouse on a target.

MMO - Damage, in grouping it's common to have very short battles, so often you only get your initial shot/burst, or you want to get the mobs attention NOW.

RTS - Fire Rate.

- Tir

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Neither, I prefer accuracy.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Fire rate, as long as it's still accurate (to a point) or has large magazines/fast reload.

 

[DeleteThisPlease]

TL;DR Answer for those who don't want to read the text below: Damage

The why: Rate Of Fire is a interesting thing. There is something to be said for simply throwing up a wall of Dakka and a hellstorm of bullets, forcing your opponents to either duck away and take cover in a easy-to-kill spot with a well placed grenade or a ally sniper, but while anyone who walks into the wall could become swisscheese, why bother with wasting all that ammo if you could have a gun that turns your target into chunky salsa with ONE shot from a long distance off?

It's safer, more ammo-effective, and most importantly, will FORCE you to aim and be precise with your shots. If you want to get kills, you need to AIM.

Should everyone have these weapons? Of course not, that would be silly, it would be musket warfare all over again. There need to be a balance of users.

But I prefer damage over ROF. Give me a Browning 50. Cal with a bolt-action or a Winchester Lever-Action any day.

 

[Vykrel]

damage. especially when it comes to sniper rifles. id rather have a bolt-action sniper that kills in one shot than a semi-automatic sniper that kills in 3 or 4. when im playing battlefield, i want to hit them one time and drop them before they realize what the hell just happened.

 

[Iwana Humpalot]

All about damage. If your behind the cover and enemy is supressing you, you can shoot couple quick shots on him/them and duck for cover before they hit you, but if ur using gun whit higher rate of fire you might need more time to do same amount of damage and get shot.
This is like; would you prefer plasma or laser in fallout.