Seems to me ROF is a double-edged sword. On one hand, a lower rate of fire allows for easier aiming and precision. On the other hand, it requires that you keep your aim over a longer period of time.
So my big question is, who do you think will benefit the most from the lower rate of fire?
Rate of fire is the only reason i will not play ET and i will stay RTCW… ET is good game, but this sux… I am really disappointed! 
Might you explain why it is a problem? As far as I can see it is nothing more than a difference.
I am looking for input on how the slower ROF will change things.
“On one hand, a lower rate of fire allows for easier aiming and precision”
Can u tell me how?? This is not true… If time fragment between fired bullets is higher, its harder to hit mobile target…
“easier aiming and precision” will be, if mobile target is slower or bigger…
Slower fire rate means impossible to kill somebody on far distance and harder to aim close targets…
Slower fire rates makes aiming harder…
BTW 10 sec face to face battles make me boring…
RTCW rox.
Sorry for my english, i am not native english speaker… I hope, u will see, what i want to explain 
I don’t think it benefits anyone in particular. In fact, if you said that just changing the fire rate from 6 rounds per second slightly to match RTCW would change your mind about the game, then I’d say you had other issues.
In RTCW, the thomspon shoot ~5 rds per second for 18/50 or 6 seconds to empty a magazine. The MP40 fires ~6 rds per second for 14/50 or a little > 6 seconds to empty a magazine. According to your timing, the ET weapons are emptying the same magazine in 5 seconds - so faster
Who benefits? Of course newbies and average ppl, cause skilled fragger dont hit them so easily, on the other side newbies will hit totally nothing…
Slower fire rate is bad for everyone, dunno why Splash Damage did it, maybe to make other weapons more attractive, but my favorite machine gun is totally ruined! This is the reason why i will not play ET and most of my friends, who like think the same way.
I think it doesn’t so much benefit people as much as change the way the game is played. Personally I don’t like them because it means that almost every one vs one fight onvolving two SMGs will result in circle strafing and other very quake like tactics in an attempt to avoid the shots. With a faster rate of fire, the battles can still fall into this problem, but at least the more skilled players can make kills faster and avoid getting into drawn out circle strafes. I suppose in that respect it benefits noob players in that they have a chance of survivng for a few more seconds against experienced players, but the end result will be the same, it just takes longer to get there. Personally I liked the faster rates of fire because it made the quick-tap approach to shooting a skill that needed to be learnt to be effective at medium range. Now with the slow rate of fire my old nan could manage to fire only single shots.
Mind you, it’s completely redundant to debate it - it’s not going to change now. I imagine the main reason it was slowed was to allow for the increased number of MGs (both stationary and mobile) that eat up the bandwidth with so many shots. If the SMGs could shoot fast, the MG42s would need to be ever faster and the servers would die a death. Either that or we’d end up with the “three shots at once” approach the venom took, which sucked because you know only one shot was going to be near the target at medium range.
The right question is, which class will benefit?? Of course soldiers (i hate them in RTCW) panzers, snipers, MG players… They will benefit, i have absolutely no chance to kill sniper even if i see him by machine gun!
Snipers were really strong in RTCw but here are something like gods, only other sniper can kill them on middle and far distances… Panzers have mor chances too, cause to kill them takes more time and they will catch to fire their damn rocket!
This game is for soldiers, not for guys with machine gun!
Great input.
Nikon with more time in-between shots it is easier to re-adjust aim while firing.
Infurita I don’t know where you got those stats but they are entirely wrong, :). The sourcecode itself shows that MP40s fired a round every 100 milliseconds, as did sten, and thompsons fired every 110 milliseconds. The SMGs in ET don’t fire nearly as fast.
Damocles that’s a very good post, I share many feelings with you on it. It does give the lesser skilled players more of a chance, when in regular wolf they would have suffered my one-two-three headshot punch and been dead before they knew it.
Although, the lower rate of fire does eliminate wasted ammo and increase overall accuracy, which ultimately means more kills per clip. This is something I enjoy. So in the long run it will be interesting to see how things balance out. The knockup from being shot and general chaos of being shot at seems heightened in ET, this might help to make up for the fact that newbies have a better chance of surviving your initial attack.
So far I am kind of liking the new rate of fire, although I do miss my quick-you aint got a chance kills :(.
Could very well be. It was a highly unscientific, fire 30 rounds and count seconds until empty method
Average players are benefitted, because the better players have good reflexes, and will have the enemy in their crosshairs fast. Now, if the rate of fire is decreased, that means that in the time difference between the good player having the crosshair on the weaker player, and the moment the weaker player is able to react and do the same to the good player, in that time difference the good player can do less damage than before. After this “reaction time” the odds of dealing damage are the same again as with normal rates of fire.
No matter what the ROF, if you can’t hit anybody, maybe a Nintendo and Mario Bros is more your speed?
IMO the ROF just makes me go for the head alot more than i did in RTCW,they drop fast enough when u get good with headshots and being able to track how many times you have hit the enemy in the head is a great feature.
No. This is a wolf urban legend. It is really easy to disprove…
Try capping your FPS at 5 and emptying a clip. Now cap your FPS at 200 (assuming your system will actually go that high), and empty a clip. In the second case, your clip would empty 40 times faster if it depended on FPS. In reality it takes about the same time. (about 4 seconds if I remember right)
As far as ET goes, I think the lower rate of fire, along with the gimping of the first headshot, favors the heavy weapon soldiers a lot more than RTCW. In RTCW a good headshotter could take down a PF before he got his shot off, and this is now harder in ET. That is not a good thing, IMO. As far as 1v1 fights with SMGs go, it doesn’t matter to me. They may be slightly slower in ET.
The soldiers do need to be strengthened though, they were never very powerful and even now many of them have to go prone to be fully effective. They are much less mobile.
FPS doesn’t really seem to have a noticable effect on ROF, but different intervals of framerate DO have an effect on your physics. There are some obstacles that can only be cleared if your framerate is a multiple of the correct interval, strangely enough. But they made a widely unknown cvar called “pmove_fixed” to solve this problem. It emulates the physics at higher framerates to give everyone a fair chance.
Would you say that the PF was never very powerful in RTCW ?
In ET it is even worse, because once they level up, they don’t need full charge to fire. OTOH, once you get the reduced spread from light weapons skill, the SMGs are a lot more deadly too.
I have a feeling ET will be even more of a PF fest than RTCW, but only time will tell for sure. Weapon restrictions are a poor substitute for the weapons being balanced from the start.
pmove_fixed has it’s own problems…
