Poll: Damage vs attack speed
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
I prefer the "slow, but powerful" approach in most games. I like the ability to kill things in as little attacks as possible. It makes me feel truly powerful. However, in Kingdoms of Amalur (which shall forever be known as "Kingdoms of Stunlock: Staggering") fast is always the way to go. I mostly use Greatswords and Chakrams and I got my ass handed to me until I was able to craft the "I Win" armor and get skills that prevent stunning and staggering. Fortunately I don't use Hammers or else I would have rage-quitted the day I got the game.
Easily fast attacks.
Heavy hitting but slower attacks can be good for Micro on a ranger, but generally they're not as good.
Miss one Heavy hitting attack, you miss 50 damage and have to wait another 3 seconds before your next attack to make it up.
If you attack twice as fast but hit half as hard, you'd only lose 25 damage and made that up in 1.5 seconds.
In addition, it works very well with passive abilities.
25% chance to stun for 3 seconds?
On average you'll have to wait 12 seconds for that with the 3 second attack, whilst with the 1.5 second you get it around about every 6 seconds or so.
5 HP lifesteal on attack? You'll get 20 HP in 12 seconds with the heavy attacks, 40 with the fast.
Of course, percentage lifesteal, and percentage critical hits and this are largely immune to such because the damage scales with the damage you deal.
This is largely speaking from personal experience too. Every time I play an RPG, RTS with heroes or MOBA, my friend always picks a speed oriented character. I'll hit harder than him, but I'm generally permastunned by his abilities, and he just dishes out DPS like there's no tomorrow.
Heavy hitting but slower attacks can be good for Micro on a ranger, but generally they're not as good.
Miss one Heavy hitting attack, you miss 50 damage and have to wait another 3 seconds before your next attack to make it up.
If you attack twice as fast but hit half as hard, you'd only lose 25 damage and made that up in 1.5 seconds.
In addition, it works very well with passive abilities.
25% chance to stun for 3 seconds?
On average you'll have to wait 12 seconds for that with the 3 second attack, whilst with the 1.5 second you get it around about every 6 seconds or so.
5 HP lifesteal on attack? You'll get 20 HP in 12 seconds with the heavy attacks, 40 with the fast.
Of course, percentage lifesteal, and percentage critical hits and this are largely immune to such because the damage scales with the damage you deal.
This is largely speaking from personal experience too. Every time I play an RPG, RTS with heroes or MOBA, my friend always picks a speed oriented character. I'll hit harder than him, but I'm generally permastunned by his abilities, and he just dishes out DPS like there's no tomorrow.
Depends on my enemy. Is he using some long and heavy hitting weapon, like halbert of 2H maul? Time to roll in his face and put a dagger in his eye socket. Is he jumping around with twin blades being all "can't touch this!"? Then my answer is "hammer time!"
Why? Because fights like these are more fun for everyone, rather than two identical builds dishing it out. That's just booooring.
Why? Because fights like these are more fun for everyone, rather than two identical builds dishing it out. That's just booooring.
I generally prefer faster attacking speed over damages when battling against bosses as it increases the chance of having critical damages and thus dishes out more damages in the long run (in a well-balanced game). However, if changing weapons during the battle is allowed I'll change to powerful weapons right before using powerful abilities with long cool-downs and then change back to fast weapons.
As others have said it depends on the game and mechanics at work if fast and weak far outclasses slow but powerful I will go for that but if things arent heavily weighted in favour of one side or the other I generally gravitate towards slow but powerful as I tend to play a punishing game rather than a pure rushdown game i.e wait for them to make a mistake then destroy them.