Poll: Damage vs attack speed

[aguspal]

It depends on the game and on other factors.

Does the fast but weak attacks inflict poison? Does the slow but powerfull attack stun the target? And so on...


In general I prefer the most balanced class/character thougt. If I HAD to choose... I guess I will go with fast but weak. BUT only because I am forced to go with one.

 

[Kargathia]

Speed . Always speed . If you get interrupted or miss it doesn't matter as much . Plus i feels like i'm getting shit done faster . In WoW i had my warrior dual wield daggers just for the lol's , it was pretty cool , people laughed , but i was still onthe top of my dps meter . Why the hell can't other classes put poison on daggers? Where the sense in that?

Maybe at lower levels but try do that at end game and you will surely be laughed out of town

Indeed. In five-man dungeons anyone who isn't semi-afk has a good chance of doing most damage, but theorycrafting and min-maxing mattered in raiding for a reason - it worked.

I've raided for close on 4 years, and led raids for two, and in all those years I've never seen a viable dagger-wielding DPS warrior spec.

OT: I of course prefer whatever is best in the specific game, but in the case of it being balanced, I'll go with fast - versatility is a bonus in itself.

 

[Signa]

Simple maths say attack speed is far better.

Enemy has 350HP. You can deal 100 damage per hit, once per second, or 50 damage, every half-second.

Who kills the enemy faster?

 

[SoranMBane]

Fast attacks. I always prefer to play agile and sneaky characters in RPGs (thief, rogue, assassin, ranger, etc), either slashing away with swords and daggers or spamming arrows while I do my best to dodge the enemy's attacks. The only exception is in games with guns, where I prefer to use sniper rifles or shotguns.

 

[TheSear]

In medieval/fantasy games I always play a sneaky assassin, however I always use a bow, which I believe would put me in slow but powerful. Speed however is never a factor, because the enemy doesn't even know I am taking aim until the arrow hits him and he dies .

 

[Terrible Opinions]

Simple maths say attack speed is far better.

Enemy has 350HP. You can deal 100 damage per hit, once per second, or 50 damage, every half-second.

Who kills the enemy faster?

There are more factors at play than simple math, but yes, the big advantage of weak, rapid attacks is that you don't overkill. That, and misses are a bit more forgiving. There are advantages going in the other direction, though.

You don't have to worry much about damage reduction, for example. In the case of your 350 HP enemy: what if, say, he had armour that knocked off 25 points per hit? Then you'd be killing him in five seconds with the heavy attack (375) or seven seconds with the light attacks (14 attacks at 25 damage a piece). Those armour upgrades are worth more against the marines than the siege tanks, aye?

The other noteworthy advantage: front-loaded burst damage can kill an enemy before he has a chance to counterattack.

Anyway, I like tanky tank tanks. Though fast weapons are definitely better in Elder Scrolls games because of the weapon enchanting.

 

[s0meNo0b]

Most of the time I can go for either, but lately I've been more in the mood to destory the crap out of things in a few satisfying blows so Power for me.

 

[Signa]

Simple maths say attack speed is far better.

Enemy has 350HP. You can deal 100 damage per hit, once per second, or 50 damage, every half-second.

Who kills the enemy faster?

There are more factors at play than simple math, but yes, the big advantage of weak, rapid attacks is that you don't overkill. That, and misses are a bit more forgiving. There are advantages going in the other direction, though.

You don't have to worry much about damage reduction, for example. In the case of your 350 HP enemy: what if, say, he had armour that knocked off 25 points per hit? Then you'd be killing him in five seconds with the heavy attack (375) or seven seconds with the light attacks (14 attacks at 25 damage a piece). Those armour upgrades are worth more against the marines than the siege tanks, aye?

The other noteworthy advantage: front-loaded burst damage can kill an enemy before he has a chance to counterattack.

Anyway, I like tanky tank tanks. Though fast weapons are definitely better in Elder Scrolls games because of the weapon enchanting.

Good point. I think the reason I've never noticed that was because I stack DOTs on the quick attacks if I can. Elemental damage usually isn't affected by armor.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

Yeah, any time you start throwing on additional effects to weapons, faster attacks get more attractive, as with Elder Scrolls games. Elemental damage, % chance to stun... that stuff is usually the same for all weapons, regardless of their base stats, so yeah, best to put them on the fast attacks.

 

[JeffBergGold]

OHKO all day. Rog, Zangief, Ganondorf, Hugo, O.Sagat those kinda guys.

 

[gigastrike]

Slow and hard. I love the feel of a heavy attack, and you can spend to downtime between them dodging.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

If its melee then damage all the way, if its guns then i want speed

 

[Nerexor]

I prefer to play characters that swing super fast and make lots of little damage attacks. I'm not saying it's better, I just think it's kind of awesome as opposed to a big burly guy taking fifteen seconds to swing and do one blast of damage.

Captcha: In stitches... this is about the fourth subject relevant captcha in a row, are we sure the captcha generator isn't sentient?

 

[CannibalCorpses]

It varies from game to game depending on the mechanics of combat but i prefer the slower, more skillfull attacks where possible. The repetition of pecking bosses to death with daggers is just boring

 

[Burst6]

Slow and strong. Why? Because in many games slow things also have large range. If you get used to the range and timing on your 2h great sword you'll be able to drop any dual dagger wielding sissy to the ground.

In dark souls my favorite weapon was the murakumo. It was a giant 2-handed curved sword. It was hard to build for as your character needed to be balanced in both dexterity and strength, and it was probably the slowest weapon in the game for the initial attack, but when that first attack hit the enemy was pretty much dead. If they survived the first hit, they got hit with a second, and a third. I think it was the only weapon in the game that could be chained indefinitely if you ignore stamina.


Also the great sword in dragons dogma was amazing. It controlled weird and was slow, but it had some of the easiest knockdowns in the game. It was always fun whenever an enemy charged at me. I would sweep at their feet with my sword and their corpse would fly right over me.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I prefer fast because I never like putting everything into one super attack until im sure the odds of it not biting me in the ass are quite heavily tipped in my favor. But also because when given the option (and this usually takes place more in my D&D games with my friends) I enjoy targetting specific portions of a body with quick fast attacks and dealing damage to those points to weaken the body more.

 

[taciturnCandid]

I like fast attacks that do less damage, but stagger. Stagger is delicious and it doesn't matter how strong your attacks are if you can't attack.

I also like when I get multiple attacks in a round and I can chain combat maneuvers in it. People underestimate the monk until they encounter a trip build.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

I choose the secret third option, stack-able DoT.

 

[ecoho]

slow but masssive damage. The reason i chose this is while your fast and moble with quick yet weak weapons be aware in order to use those right your in light armor which mean i hit you once and your dead, were as me sitting in my plate can just swing my massive war hammer around and all you can do is dart in and hope you can get in a few lucky hits.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Both and neither.

They both work out to be the exact same thing. And both have the potential to look awesome. So I guess it's just what I'm feeling at the time.