I like weapons that make things go boom, so definitely damage. And as a bonus, blowing up your enemy probably takes out anyone standing close to him as well.
Poll: damage or fire rate
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I was thinking of buying BC2 but then again i have a grudge with that game, and ill never forgive EA for taking $200 away from me. i bought Dragon age: Origins and it's DLC only for the free items that it came with, well the code didn't work and they refused to refund me because i bought it from there site and they said the return period had expired when it took that time for it to be delivered to me.-Ulven- said:
So sadly ill just stick to CoD man, at least MW2 lets me snipe.
I understand the need for a good damaging weapon, but damage doesn't matter when you get headshots. The faster the bullets fly, the more likely I am to get one, so I prefer fire rate in most instances. Especially around tight corners. The proof is in the pudding; my most efficient killing weapon is a mac-10, and I've used most guns at least once.
Once again, don't get me wrong, I always try to at least have access to a stronger gun, so I have the option to use it. There really isn't any such thing as one gun for all situations.
Once again, don't get me wrong, I always try to at least have access to a stronger gun, so I have the option to use it. There really isn't any such thing as one gun for all situations.
In tight quarters, around corners...when getting the flag or capturing the headquarters...then i prefer rate of fire. Simply the differance in damage between semi-autos and high firerate autos, isnt huge enough to make it worth while choosing that over getting the defenders aim off while shooting them over and over again.
Though when concealed, or on a stealthmission, as much damage that is required to get a oneshot kill is what i prefer. if im sniping, they have to die from one shot in the head(i struggle with this in normal, not HC, matches in BlOps).
Though when concealed, or on a stealthmission, as much damage that is required to get a oneshot kill is what i prefer. if im sniping, they have to die from one shot in the head(i struggle with this in normal, not HC, matches in BlOps).
This ... when I get obscenely over-powered weapons I have a habit of missing, even if I could hit it with a much-weaker weapon (such as my pistol vs magnum accuracy in RE5). Also, Sheva has perfect bloody aim, so giving her the high-powered weapons always seemed like a good idea (but shit she is an idiot on attack mode, she stands there trying to snipe a guy-with-a-crossbow while a guy-with-a-turret lays into her)Onyx Oblivion said:
Also, fire element SMG in Borderlands? Yes please! (Though I am partial to an electric revolver in that game, simply because it is a revolver that shoots lightning!!!)
Actually I don't play many shooters, so Borderlands and RE5 is basically my experience right there, though if you count Monster Hunter and go with the basic concept just not applied to guns, then yeah, speed for me; I am such an SnS whore (especially with a sleep sword, pitall traps and Large Barrel Bombs+)
This. Bad Company 2 is awesome for this, as the shotguns have the range of an acutaly, you know, gun.Berserker119 said:
In any game, I'd usually pick a high damage, for that satisfying 'BOOM' followed by a 'thump' but if i'm in a silly mood, i'd pick fire rate for some reason. Saving ammo and using my aiming skills with a high damage weapon is good, but sometimes, just picking up a bad-ass chaingun and lettin' rip on the weakest enemy i can find is just so satisfying. Turn the volume up and wake up evereyone with the inane and primal rip of that chaingun... so much fun. But damage is more suited to the current economical climate, saving ammo and all. Although i'd go for accuracy overall but thats just a tad off topic isnt it.
depends on the game. in cod put rapid fire and stopping power on the vector ant it took people out in less then a millisecond. I like guns that put the SoB down with minimal damage to me.
EVERYTHING I DO IS SERIOUS!!! Kidding. Nah, man, it's not serious business, but i prefer to have a chance against a tank if i don't have one myself, thus, damage remains my choice. And by "damage" i mean an orbital strike...JourneyThroughHell said:
And what's this about a full-auto RPG? Where did you find that?!
Well, there has to be a balance between the damage and ROF. Low rate of fire is good, because it conserves ammo, but if it does low damage, it will take too long to kill the other guy. So, a high rate of damage and a medium rate of fire works best for me.
Nowhere, actually. It's just something that entered my mind.Ironman126 said:
But it would be cool to see those more often in games.
Non-multiplayer games.
Come to think of it, i believe Serious Sam has one such missile launcher/RPG. But your argument rings a little hollow considering that an explosive rocket is just about as damaging as you can get with an infantry weapon.JourneyThroughHell said: