Athenau, it isn't particularly conducive to a civil discussion to
keep blurting out 'wrong' like a broken dictaphone. Particularly when
what you're effectively claiming is that weapons with larger magazine
sizes are always superior DPS pieces irrespective of the actual damage
they cause.
I'll call your arguments wrong as long as they're wrong, as they are in this instance, with this particularly egregious strawman.
"Weapons with larger magazine sizes are always superior dps pieces irrespective of the actual damage they cause."
Really? I claimed this? When I calculated those dps numbers from the actual
weapon damage? So I somehow completely disregarded weapon damage while at the same time I
used it explicitly in my calculations. That's a neat trick.
It seems to me that if you actually wanted a discussion you'd engage with actual facts and arguments rather than putting words in my mouth and waving your hands screaming that my posts are all a bunch of irrelevant details.
You get civility when you decide to be intellectually honest. Not before.
Obviously you can't fire without stopping to reload,
no-one is disputing this, so stop using it as a smokescreen. The point
is not that you have to stop to reload, the point is, as a rule, weapons
with smaller magazines generally have heaver burst damage than weapons
with larger magazines as compensation.
Ignoring this entire
concept is little more than bias. Even back in ME1, which had no concept
of magazines, it was not a point of argument that a sniper rifle with
Master Assasination actually beat the pistol with MM despite the pistol
having better constant DPS. The two issues can co-exist and are seperate
points, and obstinately refusing to admit that doesn't do your entire
argument any justice.
I am not talking about burst damage. I am talking about dps. The whole concept of "burst dps" is a contradiction in terms. Dps, by definition is an average over time. Burst damage is a sum over some fixed (and very short) period of time.
All other things equal, weapons with bigger magazines have higher damage over time. Why you persist in trying to refute this is baffling.
And bringing up burst damage doesn't do your argument any favors. Weapons with bigger damage packets have better burst damage, so the viper is entirely superior to the vindicator in this department.
First of all, how can a viper fire four rounds a second when it's refire
rate is is actually less than the Vindicator, and the vindicator bursts
are 3 rounds each?? Secondly, how can you arbitrarily include magazine
size in the first argument but then decide that recoil (which is over 5
times the Vindicator in zoom and undoubtedly has some effect on DPS, as
it is the biggest obstacle to hitting) has no place in the argument? I'm
going to assume you have a reason for not including it beyond the
simple fact that it doesn't fit with your position.
At this point, I have to wonder if you've actually a. used the viper, b. actually tested any of the (wrong) assertions you make, or c. looked at the data in the coalesced.ini file.
It's obvious to anyone who has tried out the viper that it fires faster than the 1.5 rounds/sec (1/.65s) number that the burst refire number taken from the gamefaqs chart would indicate. That's because it's the ROF field that controls the rate of fire and that number is 240 (aka four rounds per second).
And recoil? Seriously? First of all, if you're using adrenaline rush (which you should be) the recoil is completely negligible. And if you're firing outside of adrenaline rush, the recoil recovers fast enough so that the crosshairs return to where you were aiming in time for the next shot.
And when did difficulty levels enter this equation? Is this just
another detail you've decided to throw in?
Uh, from my first post? Really, I don't think it's too much to expect you to read what I write before replying. It's not as if I'm speaking some strange moon language, right? It looks very much like English to me.
I don't see the point of discussing weapon minutiae in the context of the lower difficulty levels, the game is easy enough there that anything will work well.
Modifié par Athenau, 13 février 2010 - 01:19 .