I prefer the inbetween. Rather then a fuck off, buster sword or a super cracktastic knife I prefer a short sword and shield, which is usually a medium speed middle of the road affair.
Poll: Damage vs attack speed
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
I don't care how fast you think you are, when you get a nice big smack to the face, you're done for.
It really depends on the damage reduction mechanic and the pre-shot time vs the cooldown between attacks. All of this while ignoring other possible benefits of an attack such as area effects, interrupts, stuns and the like and if these are based on a flat percentage of the amount of damage dealt.
So to make this easy lets look at two attack types for all of these scenarios. The slow one does 100 damage with 1 attack per second, the fast one does 10 damage with 10 attacks per second. So on face value their DPS is the same.
For damage reduction based on percentage damages these remain the same in all cases. However for flat numeric damage reduction per attack high damage wins as the reduction effect is multiplied for high attack speeds. A game like Starcraft 2 plays on this by having some units ignore damage OVER a certain point thus greatly favoring high attack speed against such units.
For weapons that use almost all of their time as part of a pre-shot timer fast attack speed produces less lag between you pulling the trigger and shooting, which makes it more intuitive and in many games makes it a lot harder to dodge. While weapons that use almost all of their time as a cooldown often make more powerful attacks count more because you have the possibility of taking an enemy out of the fight before they have a chance to do anything.
So yep, no easy answer, but because I've been reading through UFOpedia about the classic X-COM I have to say slow, powerful attacks because sectopods are monsters with their insane armor of death that weaker weapons can't hope to penetrate.
So to make this easy lets look at two attack types for all of these scenarios. The slow one does 100 damage with 1 attack per second, the fast one does 10 damage with 10 attacks per second. So on face value their DPS is the same.
For damage reduction based on percentage damages these remain the same in all cases. However for flat numeric damage reduction per attack high damage wins as the reduction effect is multiplied for high attack speeds. A game like Starcraft 2 plays on this by having some units ignore damage OVER a certain point thus greatly favoring high attack speed against such units.
For weapons that use almost all of their time as part of a pre-shot timer fast attack speed produces less lag between you pulling the trigger and shooting, which makes it more intuitive and in many games makes it a lot harder to dodge. While weapons that use almost all of their time as a cooldown often make more powerful attacks count more because you have the possibility of taking an enemy out of the fight before they have a chance to do anything.
So yep, no easy answer, but because I've been reading through UFOpedia about the classic X-COM I have to say slow, powerful attacks because sectopods are monsters with their insane armor of death that weaker weapons can't hope to penetrate.
I dislike god of may cry games where enemies take a million hits and you have to air juggle them in stylish combos for half an hour.
Games like metroid or zelda handle it much better, each attack has much more impact, you can easily see what you're doing and improvements are immediately recognizable whereas in god of war it's kind of fuzzy how much more exactly a "damage upgrade" does.
Games like metroid or zelda handle it much better, each attack has much more impact, you can easily see what you're doing and improvements are immediately recognizable whereas in god of war it's kind of fuzzy how much more exactly a "damage upgrade" does.
fast, same with IRL speed will win you a battle if you've got the agility to back it, and the ability to know where to hit(in games we call this having an imba crit rating) if you hit really fast at vital spots and have stacking damage over time effects and or high critical attack chance you can generally kill with impunity, trick is having an escape plan so that you can avoid a harder hitting foe's attacks.
Depends on how the game/character type is balanced. Personally, I like slow and heavy; like a two-handed hammer. I also prefer dwarf-types and paladins, so I guess it follows. It just feels like each strike has purpose for me.
Depends on the game mechanics. In a mechanically simple action game, I prefer slow and heavy (I like being called upon to aim precisely and make every shot count). In a cRPG with a prevalent Armor Class (to hit barrier) mechanic, I prefer fast and light... with a prevalent Damage Reduction mechanic, slow and heavy.
So I guess generally slow and heavy with as much range as possible... unless it's being actively nerfed by an armor class/effect negation mechanic.
So I guess generally slow and heavy with as much range as possible... unless it's being actively nerfed by an armor class/effect negation mechanic.
In pretty much all games, I end up with a rogue build that I enjoy the most.
Amalur and the D* Souls games were really the first ones that had me enjoy myself with big huge weapons... but mainly because I could splice them into my quick & nimble builds... Amalur also made unlocking special moves good fun, while WoW and all the other MMORPGs saw me bored rather quickly.
If done proper, quick & weak isn't all that weak when you add critical hit % and bonus damage to the equation. I just feel more in control of things than when I'm wielding, say, some ludicrous hammer.
Skyrim: Magic-using rogue
FO3: Sniping from afar, nuking, traps, grenades or full auto mid-range, melee or semi-auto up close.
God, I really hope we'll see more of Amalur's good stuff, as it had plenty of that before it turned undying.
Amalur and the D* Souls games were really the first ones that had me enjoy myself with big huge weapons... but mainly because I could splice them into my quick & nimble builds... Amalur also made unlocking special moves good fun, while WoW and all the other MMORPGs saw me bored rather quickly.
If done proper, quick & weak isn't all that weak when you add critical hit % and bonus damage to the equation. I just feel more in control of things than when I'm wielding, say, some ludicrous hammer.
Skyrim: Magic-using rogue
FO3: Sniping from afar, nuking, traps, grenades or full auto mid-range, melee or semi-auto up close.
God, I really hope we'll see more of Amalur's good stuff, as it had plenty of that before it turned undying.
I'm not sure how to feel about this one. I personally enjoy playstyles which encourage accuracy and finesse, as well as dispatching enemies with a good solid hit/shot/cast, but at the same time I am almost distressingly fond of machine guns when ammunition concerns can be trivialized (re: Borderlands and a fair portion of late-game Fallout New Vegas).
I suppose I'd vote slow and strong; I'm all for the merits of solving your combat problems with a single well placed round.
I suppose I'd vote slow and strong; I'm all for the merits of solving your combat problems with a single well placed round.
Well let's see.Professor James said:
Using Dota 2 as an example:
I'll play Tiny one match, Windrunner after that, Sven in the next, and Venomancer in yet another.
So....both? Depends on my mood and how I feel like "fighting" in a game.
[sub]and that goes for every game I play[/sub]
I voted quick, but I find that I would probably strike a balance between the two, since I favor the Sword and shield in most PnP games I play.
In general I always prefer fast and speedy. I prefer to jump and dodge around.
Of course, in games like Dragon Age this isn't quite so viable, so I tend to prefer heavy fighters in those games.
Of course, in games like Dragon Age this isn't quite so viable, so I tend to prefer heavy fighters in those games.