Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rate of Fire vs Damage...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rate of Fire vs Damage...

    Whats more important... rate of fire or damage... IE:

    Looking at my current SCAR-H, with 40 damage, 620 for a rate of fire vs the one I'm eyeing, AK-12, the AK-12 has a damage of 30 but a fire rate of 680, all other stats being the same... what would your recommendation be?

    ?
    Magnum |TG-18th|


    We stand between chaos and order, evil and good, despair and hope - we are the Thin Blue Line, and we will never be broken.


  • #2
    Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

    Based just on those two guns, if you can control the recoil I would stick with the SCAR. The AK 12 has good accuracy but would in most situations be outclassed by the SCAR. this is personal opinion on how I have felt using those two weapons.
    sigpic


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

      Note that on TG's server, the SCAR is effectively (minorly) buffed thanks to the lower health settings, so the SCAR keeps a lower bullet-to-kill time than the 5.56 weapons.
      I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

        This might help: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/battlef...ines-pdws.html

        I think both are viable options, but the ACE-52 and SCAR-H do get buffs from using 85 health (extending the 3 shot kill to much further than the 8m for regular). That change is pretty significant as the shorter the bursts you have to use, the less you'll mind having a gun with terrible recoil.

        The AK-12 really isn't the "other option" to the high damage guns. I think the options (for ARs) are the AEK for high rate of fire or the M416/ACE-23 for "all around" weapon. The L85 is also not a bad option if your playstyle often involves moving while scoped in.
        .

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

          It depends on the range you are likely to engage the enemy at. Close range, higher rate of fire, medium to long range go for higher damage.
          sigpic


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

            For me it's rate of fire, damage... AND stability. I'm sticking with the AK5C because it seems to fit my play style well. I like to engage at short to medium range.

            I hardly ever play Assault so I don't even have the SCAR unlocked. Damage with the SCAR is nice but I think the smaller magazine would be a big factor for me. I tried the ACE52 for a bit and liked it at short to medium range but the 26 round mag was a factor. Doesn't the SCAR have a 20 round mag?
            sigpic
            |TG-1st|Grunt
            ARMA Admin (retired)
            Pathfinder-Spartan 5

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

              Yup 20 rounds plus 1 in the chamber if you tac reload. Don't get me wrong I like the Scar but that's more because I like the look and sound and the platform in rl as opposed to its in game representation.

              It has stopping power to spare. It also has a reduced mag size, painfully slow rof and is suprisingly inaccurate out past even medium range.

              Carbines like the AK5c are good for close stuff but again suffer at medium range. Personally I don't even think the AK is the best carbine in the group. Tge ACRW bests it up close with a much higher rate of fire, you just need recoil control. The Sig is underrated too. High rof and a bit more accurate at medium range.

              Personally as far as the assault rifles go I'd seriously look at the M416, superb all rounder. A wildcard to try is the M16 A4. I've been using it a lot and once you get used to the 3 round burst its surprisingly effective and fun to use.


              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                Ps: Don't forget to factor in how attachments can alter weapon characteristics, strengthening weaknesses or accentuating positives dependent on your preferences/playstyle.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                  Originally posted by Wicks View Post
                  Personally as far as the assault rifles go I'd seriously look at the M416, superb all rounder. A wildcard to try is the M16 A4. I've been using it a lot and once you get used to the 3 round burst its surprisingly effective and fun to use.
                  ACE23 is basically the M416 but a tiiiiny bit better in every real way. And yes, it is pretty much the best "all around" rifle. Every other rifle has advantages and tradeoffs from that central platform.
                  I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                    Agreed Razcsak on some levels but from a personal perspective I prefer the 416. I 'feel' the rof better, as in I can tell how many rounds I put out in a burst. The 416 takes up less screen real estate imo which gives me better situational awareness on the off side of my gun (ie right hand screen). I can't remember the comparative ROF's but the 416 is high enough to compete with the best of them, ie AEK at medium ranges, due to its accuracy, whilst having far superior long range accuracy. The ACE by comparison may well have statiscally better credentials, but, well, it feels and handles loose, like you'd expect from some Chinese knock off AK. I know that sounds daft but the 416 feels tight and responsive to muzzle control etc.

                    I think for someone picking up both guns in game with equal attachments the Ace is going to be the one they like, simply because it's hard not to like. Easy to use, predictable recoil area (if not pattern). Now the 416, tiny bit harder in that it pulls harder for me in one direction, but much more satisfying to shoot and when you master the recoil pattern you get a tremendous all rounder.

                    End of the day the ACE23 statistically is superb. However it sounds like garbage, takes up half your screen, is lacking at medium range and beyond (at least in my hands). 416 is the better all rounder, if you put the time in with her, but it's all personal opinion. All depends on how you shoot, how you move and how you shoot when you're moving. Great discussion.
                    Last edited by Wicks; 01-06-2014, 07:52 PM. Reason: Typos


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                      i think reload time is a "real" advantage of the m416 over the ACE-23. But I mean, it's pretty much just splitting hairs between the two.
                      .

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                        I haven't gotten the ACE yet but my personal favorite is my L85A2. I was very happy when it was available for unlock. The stat s for it might be lower it feels right in my hands like noon of the others do.

                        In the end [MENTION=1612]Magnum50[/MENTION] I think this is what it will come down to for you, which gun are you most comfortable with?
                        sigpic


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                          The best gun is the one you have the most fun playing with. It's just that being the best player possible often leads to the most fun, but there are certainly other considerations, whether that's aesthetics, play style, or what have you.
                          .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                            Originally posted by hil3illy View Post
                            I haven't gotten the ACE yet but my personal favorite is my L85A2. I was very happy when it was available for unlock. The stat s for it might be lower it feels right in my hands like noon of the others do.
                            Mine is too. I prefer the bullpup aiming while moving bonus and the higher rate of fire is very controllable for me. The tradeoffs (punishingly slow reload, seemingly higher recoil) are worth it for me. I just wish the stats weren't encrypted so I could nerd out over them on symthic. While I like the L85, I can acknowledge that the best place for most places to start is the ACE-23, and then they can deviate from that excellent all-rounder position to pick up advantages/disadvantages that they prefer.

                            Of the weapon class, I'm most impressed with the assault rifles. They seem to be the most balanced, with each gun having its own niche and purpose without stepping too much on each others' toes, yet also not having a unconditionally "best" gun. (I mean, that is the ACE-23, but by a much slimmer margin than in previous BF games, to the point where its very, very debateable). Compare that to the DMRs, where I'm honestly not sure what the point of about half of them is. The RFB, SKS, and [insert any other one here to be the baseline] are all you really need for variation, since the other ones all vary in terms of "+5 ammo" or "totally minuscule change in horizontal recoil". The ACE-23 SV is the only one of those that kind of stands out by virtue of having a faster recoil reduction, and even then its really, really minor. With the exception of the SKS, they all feel almost entirely the same to me.
                            I can ADS using more than a 2x without significant stutter! This was a good patch.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rate of Fire vs Damage...

                              I actually think DICE did a pretty good job with all the automatic weapon classes. While clearly some are junk to only be used for aesthetic or sentimental reasons, a large portion have at least something that recommend them over other guns.

                              The biggest frustration I have is that PDWs, which excel at CQB, are on a class that has little use for CQB. Maybe that's a feature instead of a bug (it at least means that Locker has some engineers who aren't just blowing up walls), but it seems like a waste.
                              .

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X