Significance of ROF in TTK

[mw2baller]

The point of this thread is to determine the % difference in ROF it takes before a weapon shows noticeable improvement.

On this forum, a lot of people believe that a ROF difference of ~50 RPM makes a big difference. It does not. For example if we look at the M4 and the ACR, which have a ROF of 705 vs 780, after 1 second of firing, the M4 fired 13 bullets while the ACR fired 11.75 (to avoid rounding errors i'll keep the decimals). From what i've seen, most people fire their gun for around 1 second to get a kill. 1 extra bullet really wont help much, especially since it'll come into play near the end of the 1 second.

The M4 can fire 11.75 bullets in 0.9 seconds. This turns into a 0.1 second advantage. However compared to the other things that influence TTK, this is nothing:

• www.prelovac.com/vladimir/reflex-tester go on this website and do the reflex test. They varied for me by 0.1 seconds.
  
• ADS time. It takes 0.3 seconds to ADS normally, 0.15 with QD, and 0 with stalker.
  
• Lag. This can be significant, roughly 0-0.5 seconds.
  
• Other stuff like your anticipation of an engagement and aiming skill. Again 0-0.5 seconds.
  

In a best case scenario you're using an m4, are in the zone with reflexes, using stalker, have 0 lag, and perfect anticipation and aiming skill. Your TTK will consist solely of your reaction time at pulling the trigger and the M4's kill time. With a reaction time of 0.25 seconds this turns into a TTK of 0.4 seconds.
In a worst case scenario you're using the ACR, are drunk, using blast shield, have 0.5 second lag, and are retarded. Your TTK will be 1.57 seconds. The gun choice changed pretty much nothing.

The importance of ROF increases as accuracy decreases. For example at 100% accuracy, the TTK difference is 0.016. In a hip firing scenario where accuracy is around 10%, the M4 will empty it's magazine in 2.3 seconds while the ACR will do it in 2.55.

So for % differences in ROF to matter, they need to fulfill either one of these two criteria:

1. The total time saved during the TTK is greater than the variance in TTK caused by the 4 factors I mentioned. If you average them up, you end up with a value of 0.35 seconds that TTK will vary by based on the 4 factors I mentioned above. If your ROF influenced TTK difference is greater than this, than it has a greater than average weight in terms of affecting TTK and as such, is significant. This option primarily affects low ROF weapons with high accuracy like bolt actions, whose accuracy is insignificant (barring extreme differences) since they only fire 1-3 shots per engagement.

2. The extra bullets fired have to come into play before the players accuracy has resulted in a kill and made the extra bullets worthless. A very crude example would have a 3hk and 10 bullet per second gun firing at 20% accuracy. If the gun now fired at 12 bullets per second, those 2 extra bullets would only make a difference if they were fired before 3 hits were achieved. The rate at which the other bullets were fired would also need to be taken into account. To calculate this precisely requires knowledge of probability and statistics which I do not have, so I'll stop here.

[blues27xx]

Higher RoF has advantages besides just higher TTK. To name a few, whenever you miss a shot with the M4 you have a follow up shot off faster than the guy with the ACR, and the faster your bullets hit, the less time the opponent has to recover from flinch.

I would say "noticeable improvement" would be something like the ACR to the type 95 from a purely TTK standpoint, but most of the guns have a lot of things going for them besides TTK.

[mmacola]

Miss one bullet with the M60 = death.

ROF matters. With the M4 vs ACR too.

ACR

# of Misses	TTK
1	.255
2	.340
3	.425

M4

# of Misses	TTK
1	.231
2	.308
3	.385

You shoot 20 bullets (you never know, enemy may be jumping around) with the ACR, 1.615s. With the M4, 1.463. This difference alone is enough for the M4 shoot it's 3 hit killing bullets.

[blues27xx]

^ Exactly.

Accuracy plays a huge part in TTK. The higher RoF guns can compensate for missed shots much easier though.

[Lexapro]

Higher ROF weapons also cause the target to flinch more when hit.

Something to point out is that while ROF is basically insignificant in TTK, ROF has more of an effect on actual weapon effectiveness than TTK does.

[acidsnow]

I've been playing since CoD4, and although there are many ways to play CoD, I've found through the years that using a weapon with a high Rate of Fire (RoF) is the most effective way to play. Especially if you're a "run & gun" kind of player. Being able to fire lots of bullets allows you to keep an enemy player "in flinch mode," thus denying his aim (and his bullets) from targeting you.

[mw2baller]

Firstly, i'm not debating the effectiveness of high ROF weapons. I'm saying that if there's a weapon that fires 50-100 RPM slower, then it's not noticeably worse. Things like damage per bullet, clip size, and most importantly recoil are much more sensitive to small changes than ROF.

Second of all, missing bullets is based on time, not bullets fired. You miss because you failed to put your sights on target. It's very easy to miss 10 bullets with a rapid fire PP90. It means that it took you 0.5 seconds to find your target. Missing 10 bullets with a CM901 means you took 1 second to find your target. In the extreme scenario you'll miss 20 bullets with an mp7. You're not gonna miss 20 bullets with an MSR.

Thirdly. Missed bullets are only hard to compensate with very low ROF weapons. Like pump actions. Let's say it took you 0.5 seconds to find your target while you were firing full auto with both the p90 and mp7. Missing a shot with the P90 means you'll have to wait 0.07 seconds to fire the next, while with the UMP it's 0.08. Whoop dee doo 0.01 seconds. In those 0.5 seconds, the P90 fired it's 8th shot 0.49 seconds in. Which means that it has to wait until 0.56 seconds to fire it's next shot. The UMP fired it's 7th shot 0.48 seconds in. Which means it'll fire it's 8th shot at 0.56 seconds. So ROF differences don't matter with this regard unless they're really big.

Lastly small increases in ROF don't add noticeably to flinch. Flinch only pays a part if you miss a lot of bullets, since most weapons can kill the guy before he even notices he's being shot. The rate at which you make the guy flinch is related to accuracy, which the previous 2 arguments explained.

[aidsaidsaids]

Aug 6, 2012 15:27:22 GMT -5 Mousey said:

its definitely the way to go, since one's also more likely to miss frequently then they're on the move a lot.

...unless your target is at range, in which case needing to hit a bunch of shots with the recoil stacking faster will cause your ttk to plummet. Notice that the most effective guns at long range generally have lower RoF and higher bullet damage (Snipers, Mk14, etc)

[acidsnow]

Aug 7, 2012 0:46:49 GMT -5 mw2baller said:

Lastly small increases in ROF don't add noticeably to flinch. Flinch only pays a part if you miss a lot of bullets, since most weapons can kill the guy before he even notices he's being shot. The rate at which you make the guy flinch is related to accuracy, which the previous 2 arguments explained.

...Regardless, "flinch" is still an effective means of disabling certain targets: namely being more effective against enemy players using weapons with greater zoom factors such as snipers, ACOG users, and other non-default zooms-factors.

Flinch really messes with snipers, and other high-zoom weapons, because their screen appears to travel a much greater distance, and that alone can be difficult enough for a player's brain to compensate for, and reacquiring a target.

...This is why I most often use the L-86 with impact: because it has a high RoF w/good damage. If I use impact, I can almost guarantee a hit & a flinch upon my enemy even when they cower behind cover. It's a tactic of "spraying & praying, with some flinch mixed in for suppressive measures." I kinda wish CoD borrowed a bit of BF3's "blurring effect" when being shot at, because then impact would be even more imba.

[jipa]

Aug 6, 2012 2:19:19 GMT -5 mmacola said:

Miss one bullet with the M60 = death.

ROF matters. With the M4 vs ACR too.

ACR

# of Misses	TTK
1	.255
2	.340
3	.425

M4

# of Misses	TTK
1	.231
2	.308
3	.385

You shoot 20 bullets (you never know, enemy may be jumping around) with the ACR, 1.615s. With the M4, 1.463. This difference alone is enough for the M4 shoot it's 3 hit killing bullets.

But this isnt taking into count that it takes less time to miss 3 bullets with M4 than it is with ACR. Obviously you get funky numbers if you dont take doo-doo into account. Being off target for one second, then getting on target for the kill, makes you miss a lot more bullets with m4, but that doesnt really matter, because the time to kill starts when the first bullet hits.

If you get on targets in the middle of auto-fire, on average you are in the middle of the shooting cycle, and have to wait half of the "cooldown" of the cycle, which is 0,0385 sec for M4 (taken from the table above) and 0,0425 sec for ACR.

If you start shootting off target, get on target for 2 hits, lose target again and then get back on target for the last hits, you have repeated the process two times, and the lost time due to losing target is 0,077/0,085 secs.

Getting on target for n-times more in a single gunfight means n-times half of the cooldown lost TTK.

Half of your weapon cooldown is really neglictable and will never lose you the gunfight. If you get off target more than once in a gunfight, your problem really isnt your weapon's low RPM, but rather the doo-doo accuracy and where you REALLY lose time is not being on target landing those shots.

[probaddie]

Haha, time for mathematics ;D! This is why the OP is right:

Let T₁ and T₂ be the time-to-kill for weapons 1 and 2, respectively. Then we have:

T₁ = 60(n₁ - 1)/r₁
T₂ = 60(n₂ -1 )/r₂

where n₁ and n₂ are the bullets-to-kill for each gun and r₁ and r₂ are the rates of fire for each gun. Then the difference in time-to-kill between the weapons is:

T₁ - T₂ = 60*(n₁ - 1)/r₁ - 60*(n₂ - 1)/r₂

= 60(r₂n₁ - r₂ - r₁n₂ + r₁)/r₁r₂

See that r₁r₂ that everything gets divided by? That's why increasing ROF has so little effect on TTK. If you're dividing by the product of two large numbers (600-1200), you're dividing by a really huge number, which means your difference in TTK is really flipping small. Even if you change a gun's ROF from, say, 700 to 800, the increase in the top half of that fraction is just about insignificant compared to the increase in what it all gets divided by. What's more important -- as you all knew already -- is bullets to kill, i.e. damage. if you freeze the lower half of that fraction by leaving ROF alone but start to change a weapon's damage by lowering its BTK, you start getting really huge changes in the top half of that fraction, and thus more significant changes in TTK.

Just as an example, let's take the M4 @ 780 RPM and try to buff it to 850 RPM. If we are interested in TTK at range, then n₁ = n₂ = 5, and

T1-T2 = 60*4*(850 - 780)/(850*780) = 0.025 increase in TTK. Big whoop.

Now, lets try increasing its damage at range to 25, i.e. decrease BTK to 4. Now, r1 = r2 = 780, and we have

T1 - T2 = 60*(4 - 3)/780 = 0.077 increase in TTK.

So the difference in TTK we get by decreasing BTK from 5 to 4 is nearly three times greater than what we get by increasing the rate of fire by 70 RPM.

So yeah, that. Class dismissed .

[Tyzerra]

Aug 10, 2012 10:37:13 GMT -5 probaddie said:

Haha, time for mathematics ;D! This is why the OP is right:

Let T₁ and T₂ be the time-to-kill for weapons 1 and 2, respectively. Then we have:

T₁ = 60(n₁ - 1)/r₁
T₂ = 60(n₂ -1 )/r₂

where n₁ and n₂ are the bullets-to-kill for each gun and r₁ and r₂ are the rates of fire for each gun. Then the difference in time-to-kill between the weapons is:

T₁ - T₂ = 60*(n₁ - 1)/r₁ - 60*(n₂ - 1)/r₂

= 60(r₂n₁ - r₂ - r₁n₂ + r₁)/r₁r₂

See that r₁r₂ that everything gets divided by? That's why increasing ROF has so little effect on TTK. If you're dividing by the product of two large numbers (600-1200), you're dividing by a really huge number, which means your difference in TTK is really flipping small. Even if you change a gun's ROF from, say, 700 to 800, the increase in the top half of that fraction is just about insignificant compared to the increase in what it all gets divided by. What's more important -- as you all knew already -- is bullets to kill, i.e. damage. if you freeze the lower half of that fraction by leaving ROF alone but start to change a weapon's damage by lowering its BTK, you start getting really huge changes in the top half of that fraction, and thus more significant changes in TTK.

Just as an example, let's take the M4 @ 780 RPM and try to buff it to 850 RPM. If we are interested in TTK at range, then n₁ = n₂ = 5, and

T1-T2 = 60*4*(850 - 780)/(850*780) = 0.025 increase in TTK. Big whoop.

Now, lets try increasing its damage at range to 25, i.e. decrease BTK to 4. Now, r1 = r2 = 780, and we have

T1 - T2 = 60*(4 - 3)/780 = 0.077 increase in TTK.

So the difference in TTK we get by decreasing BTK from 5 to 4 is nearly three times greater than what we get by increasing the rate of fire by 70 RPM.

So yeah, that. Class dismissed .

^ This is what interested me about joining the Den Kirson Foums! I love researching all the numbers, calculations, etc. Get's me really interested

[mmacola]

Aug 10, 2012 10:37:13 GMT -5 probaddie said:

Haha, time for mathematics ;D! This is why the OP is right:

Let T₁ and T₂ be the time-to-kill for weapons 1 and 2, respectively. Then we have:

T₁ = 60(n₁ - 1)/r₁
T₂ = 60(n₂ -1 )/r₂

where n₁ and n₂ are the bullets-to-kill for each gun and r₁ and r₂ are the rates of fire for each gun. Then the difference in time-to-kill between the weapons is:

T₁ - T₂ = 60*(n₁ - 1)/r₁ - 60*(n₂ - 1)/r₂

= 60(r₂n₁ - r₂ - r₁n₂ + r₁)/r₁r₂

See that r₁r₂ that everything gets divided by? That's why increasing ROF has so little effect on TTK. If you're dividing by the product of two large numbers (600-1200), you're dividing by a really huge number, which means your difference in TTK is really flipping small. Even if you change a gun's ROF from, say, 700 to 800, the increase in the top half of that fraction is just about insignificant compared to the increase in what it all gets divided by. What's more important -- as you all knew already -- is bullets to kill, i.e. damage. if you freeze the lower half of that fraction by leaving ROF alone but start to change a weapon's damage by lowering its BTK, you start getting really huge changes in the top half of that fraction, and thus more significant changes in TTK.

Just as an example, let's take the M4 @ 780 RPM and try to buff it to 850 RPM. If we are interested in TTK at range, then n₁ = n₂ = 5, and

T1-T2 = 60*4*(850 - 780)/(850*780) = 0.025 increase in TTK. Big whoop.

Now, lets try increasing its damage at range to 25, i.e. decrease BTK to 4. Now, r1 = r2 = 780, and we have

T1 - T2 = 60*(4 - 3)/780 = 0.077 increase in TTK.

So the difference in TTK we get by decreasing BTK from 5 to 4 is nearly three times greater than what we get by increasing the rate of fire by 70 RPM.

So yeah, that. Class dismissed .

I don't get it. Making it more powerful or shoots faster increases ttk? Should be reducing it

EDIT: Oh you meant difference. Increase was not a good word though :-P

[TheHawkNY]

There are lots of engagements where none of the factors mentioned matter. When shooting an enemy in the back or side, generally the firerate, recoil, damage, etc. don't matter - you're going to kill him with any of the weapons regardless.

There are also a lot of engagements where the factors mentioned do matter, where you're hipfiring, or where accuracy is low. You're firing your gun for a second or more and that extra bullet or two really does make the difference.

Just because the difference is not easily noticeable does not mean it does not exist or is insignificant.

[asasa]

Aug 10, 2012 10:37:13 GMT -5 probaddie said:

Haha, time for mathematics ;D! This is why the OP is right:

Let T₁ and T₂ be the time-to-kill for weapons 1 and 2, respectively. Then we have:

T₁ = 60(n₁ - 1)/r₁
T₂ = 60(n₂ -1 )/r₂

where n₁ and n₂ are the bullets-to-kill for each gun and r₁ and r₂ are the rates of fire for each gun. Then the difference in time-to-kill between the weapons is:

T₁ - T₂ = 60*(n₁ - 1)/r₁ - 60*(n₂ - 1)/r₂

= 60(r₂n₁ - r₂ - r₁n₂ + r₁)/r₁r₂

See that r₁r₂ that everything gets divided by? That's why increasing ROF has so little effect on TTK. If you're dividing by the product of two large numbers (600-1200), you're dividing by a really huge number, which means your difference in TTK is really flipping small. Even if you change a gun's ROF from, say, 700 to 800, the increase in the top half of that fraction is just about insignificant compared to the increase in what it all gets divided by. What's more important -- as you all knew already -- is bullets to kill, i.e. damage. if you freeze the lower half of that fraction by leaving ROF alone but start to change a weapon's damage by lowering its BTK, you start getting really huge changes in the top half of that fraction, and thus more significant changes in TTK.

Just as an example, let's take the M4 @ 780 RPM and try to buff it to 850 RPM. If we are interested in TTK at range, then n₁ = n₂ = 5, and

T1-T2 = 60*4*(850 - 780)/(850*780) = 0.025 increase in TTK. Big whoop.

Now, lets try increasing its damage at range to 25, i.e. decrease BTK to 4. Now, r1 = r2 = 780, and we have

T1 - T2 = 60*(4 - 3)/780 = 0.077 increase in TTK.

So the difference in TTK we get by decreasing BTK from 5 to 4 is nearly three times greater than what we get by increasing the rate of fire by 70 RPM.

So yeah, that. Class dismissed .

This is a lot more math than necessary for comparing TTK?

Basically its a super complex formula relative to

(shots to kill -1)*firetime
-
(shots to kill -1)*firetime

[wittyscorpion]

When talking about ROF, we need to look at the range of encounter first.

For close to mid range (at which you can still see the opponent's outline), damage plays a more important role;

For longer range (at which the enemy has a comparable size to the red dot), recoil is going to play a more important role. Also, keep in mind that with the same recoil parameters, the higher the RoF, the worse the accuracy. For example, both M4A1 and FAD have identical recoil parameters, but on full auto FAD feels significantly less accurate.

Examples in MW3:

1) MP7: inherent with very little recoil, you can hit a distant target even when 5 bullets are required;

2) FAD: for long range shot, with or without Kick can make a huge difference;

3) PM-9: after the recent recoil buff and the use of Kick, it has a significantly longer effective range (with effective range defined as the range within which a weapon has significant advantage over others)

4) LMGs: despite the availability of RF as an attachment, few players choose it because the negative effects on recoil outweighs the positive effects on theoretical kill time.

[probaddie]

Aug 10, 2012 13:29:06 GMT -5 Mousey said:

the point of his post was to show that a change in damage effects the time to kill a lot more than changing the fire rate.

Which is obvious, really, but still, that's what I got from it.

Exactly. I just like using sledgehammers to swat flies .

(shots to kill -1)*firetime
-
(shots to kill -1)*firetime

Right. Now replace firetime by 60/rate-of-fire and you have my formulae.

There are lots of engagements where none of the factors mentioned matter. When shooting an enemy in the back or side, generally the firerate, recoil, damage, etc. don't matter - you're going to kill him with any of the weapons regardless.

There are also a lot of engagements where the factors mentioned do matter, where you're hipfiring, or where accuracy is low. You're firing your gun for a second or more and that extra bullet or two really does make the difference.

Just because the difference is not easily noticeable does not mean it does not exist or is insignificant.

Well yeah. But TTK is a theoretical measure of raw power anyway. I assume no one on these fora is so uninitiated as to think that low TTK = good gun without considering all the relevant factors you mentioned.

[mw2baller]

The whole point of this post was to get people to stop saying stuff like an MP5 with 88 more RPM was "amazing" despite being crap before this buff. There are a huge amount of posts where people say stuff like "the m4 is better than the scar-l because 30 more rpm" and stuff like that. Even in hip firing engagements where ROF matters the most, there are several other variables that contribute a lot more to TTK than the ROF.

[Lexapro]

>Fora

I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA.

Kidding aside, TTK is still a terrible measure of weapon efficacy. Again, The M4's 30 extra rpm is completely negligible in comparison to the Scar's 750 if we're talking about TTK, but the 30 extra RPM means a lot more when we factor in things like flinch, the chance of missing shots, etc. So it doesn't bother me that much when people say "the m4 is better than the Scar-L because 30 more rpm" because at short range, I think that's true. The additional ROF gives other benefits not directly related to optimal time to kill, which even in the closest of encounters, is a metric of very limited practicality.

Also, to whoever said that Mobility classes aren't designed for long range encounters, my MP7 w/ HAMR + Silencer, Ex. Con, Assassin, Dead Silence class would like to say hi.

[UrbaneVirtuoso]

Aug 11, 2012 21:18:32 GMT -5 Lexapro said:

MP7

It's pretty easy to see why.

[Tyzerra]

Aug 11, 2012 21:18:32 GMT -5 Lexapro said:

My MP7 w/ HAMR + Silencer, Ex. Con, Assassin, Dead Silence class would like to say hi.

I'm in a bit of ranting/raving mood ATM, so please don't take this too seriously or get offended. I just want to get my opinions across. (I just wrote it how I would tell my friends, which may come across as arrogant - please don't get offended)

Anyway, alot of you guys post really stupid class setups here on the forums and I don't get why. HAMR Scope? Why use that thing? Red Dot is far superior since it has next-to-no occlusion and works at all ranges; if you have any sort of accuracy then you don't need to trade peripheral vision for any extra zoom.

On another thread someone suggested using Attachments on the FAD so you could add a HBS. Why?! The HBS is terrible since it's countered by Assassin (which everyone uses), it distracts you from the game and it just wastes an attachment slot. Same applies to the Grenade Launcher; why would you throw away Ex Mags or a Red Dot for that piece of garbage? Even in modes like HQ where enemies cluster up, it rarely kills people (with it's ~1.4m lethal radius) and once you've used the 2, it's near impossible to get them back, so now you're rolling with -1 attachment.

Also, people keep suggesting Ex Con as a tier 1 perk. Why can people not see that it's the worst perk in the game? You can't shoot whilst sprinting, and you want to extend the time that you're vulnerable? And even so, once you do get to your camping spot or objective, you've expended the extra sprint from the spawn and it doesn't regen faster so you effectively don't have a tier 1 perk (ignoring 2x mantling). You could camp hard for it all to regen back, but if you're camping then why do you want to sacrifice your tier 1 perk for 4 seconds extra sprint time that you'v already used and lost?

These are just some of the silly suggestions that I can remember; can't be arsed to find more. Again, these are just my opinions and I don't want anyone to take it personally

[MastaQ]

Aug 12, 2012 4:17:21 GMT -5 Tyzerra said:

Aug 11, 2012 21:18:32 GMT -5 Lexapro said:

My MP7 w/ HAMR + Silencer, Ex. Con, Assassin, Dead Silence class would like to say hi.

I'm in a bit of ranting/raving mood ATM, so please don't take this too seriously or get offended. I just want to get my opinions across. (I just wrote it how I would tell my friends, which may come across as arrogant - please don't get offended)

Anyway, alot of you guys post really stupid class setups here on the forums and I don't get why. HAMR Scope? Why use that thing? Red Dot is far superior since it has next-to-no occlusion and works at all ranges; if you have any sort of accuracy then you don't need to trade peripheral vision for any extra zoom.

On another thread someone suggested using Attachments on the FAD so you could add a HBS. Why?! The HBS is terrible since it's countered by Assassin (which everyone uses), it distracts you from the game and it just wastes an attachment slot. Same applies to the Grenade Launcher; why would you throw away Ex Mags or a Red Dot for that piece of garbage? Even in modes like HQ where enemies cluster up, it rarely kills people (with it's ~1.4m lethal radius) and once you've used the 2, it's near impossible to get them back, so now you're rolling with -1 attachment.

Also, people keep suggesting Ex Con as a tier 1 perk. Why can people not see that it's the worst perk in the game? You can't shoot whilst sprinting, and you want to extend the time that you're vulnerable? And even so, once you do get to your camping spot or objective, you've expended the extra sprint from the spawn and it doesn't regen faster so you effectively don't have a tier 1 perk (ignoring 2x mantling). You could camp hard for it all to regen back, but if you're camping then why do you want to sacrifice your tier 1 perk for 4 seconds extra sprint time that you'v already used and lost?

These are just some of the silly suggestions that I can remember; can't be arsed to find more. Again, these are just my opinions and I don't want anyone to take it personally

I mostly agree, but GL is very useful if you're using a Recon class.

Also, if you're planning to put ExCon in your setup, I recommend seeing if there is room for an MP9+SoH Pro instead. Just switch to the MP9, start sprinting, then switch back to your primary. Bam, instant ExCon.

[mw2baller]

[quote author=lexapro board=general thread=4836 post=95573 but the 30 extra RPM means a lot more when we factor in things like flinch, the chance of missing shots, etc. So it doesn't bother me that much when people say "the m4 is better than the Scar-L because 30 more rpm" because at short range, I think that's true. The additional ROF gives other benefits not directly related to optimal time to kill, which even in the closest of encounters, is a metric of very limited practicality.[/quote]

This is what I mean. If you do the math, no matter what values you assign to variables and how you even measure stuff, the 30RPM increase is completely negligible.

In 2 seconds of firing the m4 will fire 26 shots while the scar-l will fire 25. This means nothing.

[wwaa]

Aug 11, 2012 21:18:32 GMT -5 Lexapro said:

The M4's 30 extra rpm is completely negligible in comparison to the Scar's 750 if we're talking about TTK, but the 30 extra RPM means a lot more when we factor in things like flinch, the chance of missing shots, etc. .

SCAR-L is 680 rpm, M4 is 780 rpm, at least on PC. A diffrence of 100 rpm ... denkirson.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4075

On xbox sth like 730 vs 750 rpm. docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Av5t-DE1i_xfdE5qdUg4MkhPRFhBWmo3MnhHV09GeGc&output=html

[Lexapro]

Aug 12, 2012 4:17:21 GMT -5 Tyzerra said:

Anyway, alot of you guys post really stupid class setups here on the forums and I don't get why. HAMR Scope? Why use that thing? Red Dot is far superior since it has next-to-no occlusion and works at all ranges; if you have any sort of accuracy then you don't need to trade peripheral vision for any extra zoom.

I don't deny that the RDS is a very good attachment. I find that at longer ranges, the HAMR scope's zoom really does help. Also, because it has higher zoom, your turn speed is reduced, so you can make finer adjustments at long range targets. You can also switch to the RDS on top of the HAMR if you need to. Sure it aims .15s slower, but since I earn quickdraw all the time anyways, I find the difference isn't really a big deal. With QD, you ADS faster even using the low power HAMR than a stock RDS. I also find the HAMR scope much less obtrusive than the ACOG and it doesn't decrease centerspeed like the ACOG does. It also looks really cool and I love the unique reticle.

If I was playing really competitively, I'd use a different setup, but I like how this class works in public objective gametypes.

Also, people keep suggesting Ex Con as a tier 1 perk. Why can people not see that it's the worst perk in the game? You can't shoot whilst sprinting, and you want to extend the time that you're vulnerable? And even so, once you do get to your camping spot or objective, you've expended the extra sprint from the spawn and it doesn't regen faster so you effectively don't have a tier 1 perk (ignoring 2x mantling). You could camp hard for it all to regen back, but if you're camping then why do you want to sacrifice your tier 1 perk for 4 seconds extra sprint time that you'v already used and lost?

Now you've gone to far. Ex. Con is a good perk that is extremely useful in objective gametypes. Scavenger, Blast Shield, Overkill, Marksman, and Dead Silence are all worse IMO (though not necessarily bad, by any means, just more limited in usefulness.)

In Domination, getting to B first and capturing it is EXTREMELY important and often decides the winner of the match. With a Ex. Con SMG class, you can get to B at least as fast as anyone else. Throw down a Claymore and Trophy system and you've set up an advantageous environment for your team to capture the objective first. It's completely ridiculous to state that just because your sprint doesn't regen faster, you don't have a tier one perk. I'm sorry, that's just plain stupid. Your perk allows you to run twice as long. That is not by any means a worthless benefit, even if your sprint recharges at normal speed. You can still wait the normal amount of time and run the normal amount of distance, but you have the ABILITY to run longer. Yes you are vulnerable when you sprint, but that's the tradeoff you make, regardless if you have Ex. Con or not. Do a lot of players die from unecesary oversprinting? Yes. Does that make sprinting itself bad? NOT A CHANCE. Positioning is incredibly important in MW3: if you can get to an advantageous location before your enemy, that is a HUGE benefit.

That's like saying that SoH is a worthless perk because you can reload just fine without it. On most weapons, the difference in reload is less than 1.5 seconds. If you run out of ammo in a firefight, you're dead anyways. And most of the time, you reload when you're safe. "It doesn't make your gun more powerful, so unless you're reloading, it's like you effectively don't have a tier 1 perk." Do you see how completely moronic that sounds? I think SoH is very good, but it is situational just like Ex. Con. Players like it because they love the idea of being to reload quickly and it makes them FEEL less vulnerable, but in reality, the number of times SoH makes an actual tangible difference in a fight is much lower than the number of times you reload.

Again, it's just my opinion that you're talking out of your ass. Don't take it personally.

[cmck]

Ex conditioning sucks ass..... because its too watered down now. I miss my marathon. It needs faster regen or unlimited sprint or something. Its just too useless now. Kind of like how scavenger used to be good.

[UrbaneVirtuoso]

I'll have to agree; they watered down Ex Con way too much. The only times I see myself using it are with shotguns, seeing how reloads can be done between sprints and there's Extended Magazines anyway.

Aug 12, 2012 4:17:21 GMT -5 Tyzerra said:

Same applies to the Grenade Launcher; why would you throw away Ex Mags or a Red Dot for that piece of garbage? Even in modes like HQ where enemies cluster up, it rarely kills people (with it's ~1.4m lethal radius) and once you've used the 2, it's near impossible to get them back, so now you're rolling with -1 attachment.

Get hitmarkers at range with your primary, but just can't get there? The GL makes everything better for you, while conventional grenades are just too slow for that. I reckon this is the mind-set Bowling intended people to have with the newer Pro Pipe, rather than it being a miniature nuke as before.

[Tyzerra]

This post is mainly in response to Lexa (but others as well)

First off, sorry for sounding like a jackass. I shouldn't have phrased some of my points how I did. My apologies.
Anyway, I still think the Red Dot is better than the HAMR, but I guess that optics come down to player preference most of the time.

Also, I kinda see your point about Ex Con's usefulness. It's just more subjective than other perks; kinda like Recon is as well. The comparison to SoH was pretty good too - you're right about it not being as useful as a player believes it is. Plus like Mousey said, I am mostly a KC player (one who ignores tags at that) so objective play isn't my strongest trait. Still, about a quarter of my play time is on Dom and when I do play it I like to have 2 out of 3 flags at all times to tighten up those spawns - so I do have some experience when it comes to flag capping. However, I only really play Dom if I have an experienced team of 5/6, so that makes capping the B flag at the start a whole world easier with or without Ex Con. There have been a few games though where the few extra seconds from Ex Con would have got us the cap - especially on maps like Resistance and Lockdown.

The point is, I shouldn't have said that Ex Con is the worst perk, that was wrong. It's a very subjective perk that doesn't suit my play-style which is why I said it was so bad. I still think it's a bad perk and should be avoided, but it does have its uses at times.

I still stand by my views on the Heartbest Sensor and Grenade Launcher though; UrbaneVirtuoso gives the only useful purpose of Grenade Launchers, but I still wouldn't say that they're worth using. If you're happy with your weapon naked, go for it, use the HBS or GL so you don't waste that slot. If you want to use Red Dot, Suppressor, Ex Mags, etc though, don't waste your time giving up Kick for Attachments so you can add the HBS/GL too. That's just silly.

[danoski666]

Aug 12, 2012 14:59:45 GMT -5 Mousey said:

Now that that's over, let's get to the real point.

The worst perk is scavenger. Hands down. Any class that starts out with scavenger equipped is doomed from the start.

AA-12! But thats doomed from ground up, ever since you put it on your class.

[Tyzerra]

Aug 12, 2012 14:59:45 GMT -5 Mousey said:

The worst perk is scavenger. Hands down. Any class that starts out with scavenger equipped is doomed from the start.

Ah, now this is going to be interesting! I have Scavenger on 5 out of 10 classes which all have Assault, and I ALWAYS start with Scavenger if I use Specialist. I agree that Scavenger isn't as good as it should be, but let's break it down based on Assault and Specialist.

Assault: You're heading for high streaks like the AC-130, Pave Low, Osprey, etc so you want to stay out of the open because that's the most likely place you'll be killed. If you run low on ammo, you're gonna need to get a gun off the floor which is probably gonna be out in the open. If you start with Scavenger though, you won't need to run out into the open and risk dying and you also get to keep the gun you started with which you're probably more comfortable using.

Specialist: You're heading for a MOAB so you want to stay out of the open because that's the most likely place you'll be killed. If you run low on ammo, you're gonna need to get a gun off the floor which is probably gonna be out in the open. Even if you've unlocked Scavenger at this point, you need to run out and grab the Scavenger packs which is practically the same thing. If you start with Scavenger though, you'll have that extra ammo to begin with and you won't need to run out into the open and risk dying. You also get to keep the gun you started with which you're probably more comfortable using.

Of course with Assault you'll be helpless against enemy killstreaks and you'll have to pace yourself away from enemies since you don't have SoH, but that's the trade-off you have to make if you want the high killstreaks - which I completely agree with.