Who is benefitted most by lower rates of fire?

(ShanK-fOO) #21

The lower SMG rate of fire benefits bunnyhoppers since the battles are longer. Basically the low ROF leaned the game more into Quake territory.
I mean does anyone even use the peek keys in ET?

I would have liked to have seen higher ROF & lower damage with the SMGs, since, historically, the SMGs shot the same pistol bullets that came with each side’s sidearm (The colt and tommy both fire .45 ammo, and the luger and mp40 use 9mm ammo)… thus the pistols and the SMGs should do the same damage per shot… and that would let me digress further and say that the rifles and the MG42 should have the same damage per shot, since they both fire high-power rifle bullets.

Anyway, the game seems more about dodging and bunnyhopping now, than in RTCW, where it was about cover and kneeling and establishing accuracy and lines of fire.

I guess that lines-of-fire role has been taken over by the MG42 soldier… I’d like to run in a few maps with a little squad built around a good MG42 guy (which incidentally is the way it was actually done in WWII), and see how much map we can own…

(Ph0g) #22

The PF soldier is only a threat when used by experienced players, but it is more attractive to newbies so it isn’t really an issue on pubs at all.

(Nikon) #23

re-adjust??? :))) Lower fire rate is HARDER to hit something!!! U r absolutelly WRONG!!! This is my last post, i played RTCW and the game is great… When am playing ET its only laggy a and frustrating for me…

(MyWay) #24

Nikon - just shOt up. Simply u r just a lamer. If u cannot it doesn’t mean that enougher don’t. U see?

I’m absolutly agree it just a difference.

(Inglix the Mad) #25

I would argue that it benefits better players:

  1. Less bullets = Less chances to hit enemy.

  2. Less chances to hit enemy = Better aimer winning.

Proof? If I fire ten rounds and six hit the target, vs someone else hitting 2 I’ve done more damage. Since it takes longer to fire ten rounds, those who aim better will win a majority of confrontations.

Inglix

P.S. A little sniper quote:

I am the Sniper:

[ul]I am patient.
I hide myself well.
I observe my target.
I learn his movements.
I fire only when I am ready.
I need only one bullet to kill.[/ul]

(Inglix the Mad) #26

Well actual firing RPM vs Cyclic rate…

MP40:

The weapon is blowback operated and has a cyclic rate of fire of 500 rounds per minute, and a practical rate of 180 rounds per minute.

M1 Thompson:

The Tommy gun uses a gas blowback system but does incorporate a delay device to keep the bolt from opening until the gas pressure in the barrel had dropped. It’s cyclic rate was 700 rounds per minute, and a practical rate of 250 rounds per minute.

Important notes:

Cyclic rate is how many times the firing mechanism can cycle per minute.
Practical fire rates are averages that trained soldiers can fire.

There are ceilings to this:

  1. Aiming will degrade to useless very quickly (duh).
  2. The materials used in manufacture can breakdown if pushed too hard (i.e. barrels get red hot, warp, et. al.).

Inglix

(Kendle) #27

I voted for the last option because quite simply I don’t agree with the first 4. Slower rate of fire means the better aim wins in a 1-v-1, which is why I like ET more than RTCW.

I don’t have great aim, but I’d say there are as many players out there with worse aim than there are those with better aim. In E.T. I feel as if my aim is more proportional to my ability, i.e. I win 1-v-1’s against weaker aimers, and lose against better aimers, seemingly regardless of relative XP as well.

In RTCW it’s more of a lottery as to who wins the 1-v-1. I can take out top Clan players I know should really have eaten me for breakfast, and then lose against a noob!