|
Post by Mossy on Apr 22, 2010 11:33:34 GMT -5
So has anyone figured out which of the two specs is best for any given weapon, statistically? If I understand correctly, the marksmanship spec decreases your cone of fire by about a third, which effectively means more shots on target and less missing for no good reason. The magnum ammo spec just increases damage.
Therefore, isn't it possible to somehow calculate for each weapon given its damage, ROF, and cone of fire whether you gain more damage output with either spec?
Or am I overthinking this?
|
|
|
Post by ZeroKelvin^ on Apr 22, 2010 12:24:56 GMT -5
its not possible to calculate because it depends on your aim too, but I find it very interesting when you get to the low damage point where magnum means 2 less shots to kill which makes it a no-brainer
|
|
|
Post by dragoneye on Apr 22, 2010 12:46:04 GMT -5
The marksmanship spec is wonky. It reduces your minimum and maximum CoF by .65 for all stances, but it does NOT reduce the rate at which your gun loses accuracy.
Eg: If it takes you 10 shots to go from 1 to 5 CoF bloom (no spec), it will take you 6~7 shots to reach max bloom (3.5). So the major benefits are:
1.) Close range: potential for headshots while firing from the hip, and better spray&pray performance. 2.) Long range: Makes the first and second shots from automatic weapons, such as the MGs and assault rifles, more accurate than they would have been, which _MAY_ contribute to better ACOG usage, but not much.
In general, I've found it's better to go with Mag over MM, just because the effective ranges at which I use my weapons have a good output as it is, and 1-2 bullets gives me an edge.
More lately though, I've been going for the ceramic armor instead of either. The flat 25 extra hp makes all the difference in those situations where you're trying to scramble into cover, or line up a headshot on the guy peppering you from range.
|
|
|
Post by ZeroKelvin^ on Apr 22, 2010 12:50:34 GMT -5
Armor works against explosives and tank fire too, that is something to consider as engineer.
|
|
|
Post by individual on Apr 23, 2010 22:46:26 GMT -5
The marksmanship spec is wonky. It reduces your minimum and maximum CoF by .65 for all stances, but it does NOT reduce the rate at which your gun loses accuracy. Eg: If it takes you 10 shots to go from 1 to 5 CoF bloom (no spec), it will take you 6~7 shots to reach max bloom (3.5). So the major benefits are: 1.) Close range: potential for headshots while firing from the hip, and better spray&pray performance. 2.) Long range: Makes the first and second shots from automatic weapons, such as the MGs and assault rifles, more accurate than they would have been, which _MAY_ contribute to better ACOG usage, but not much. In general, I've found it's better to go with Mag over MM, just because the effective ranges at which I use my weapons have a good output as it is, and 1-2 bullets gives me an edge. More lately though, I've been going for the ceramic armor instead of either. The flat 25 extra hp makes all the difference in those situations where you're trying to scramble into cover, or line up a headshot on the guy peppering you from range. Does the extra armor help against snipers, like it does in COD?
|
|
|
Post by Mossy on Apr 25, 2010 16:37:35 GMT -5
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the body armor spec simply gives you an HP bonus of 25%. So, in softcore (...is that what it's called?) you'd have 125HP as opposed to the usual 100, and in HC you'd have like, 80 something.
|
|