I only use Contractor's on LMG builds [otherwise I use a second W&H]. Fox's is more versatile and can fit into non-Rifle full DPS builds.Originally Posted by Imagine_Brata Go to original post
If you start putting in some non-WD cores, then Fox's make less sense than either Weapon/Brand or getting more Crit.
But yes, were talking milliseconds of difference..
I put together a build with Fox's, Contractor, 3 * Providence, and Coyote's, paired with M1A CQB and New Reliable (what I really need is a Stoner with good rolls and Strained)... it's cutting through everything!!!
The downside - it's quite squishy, no blue, so one of the skills must be some healing thingy.
You can get rid of Fox's Prayer period and it won't matter. I use those two items in exactly one build so that's their value to me. The damage output calculation used by most people to show higher damage in this or that configuration never have accuracy as a variable but if you plug in zero accuracy into those calculations then what damage do you get? So people pop down to the range with 50 rounds and look at a bigger number than they've seen before and automatically think it means better performance. Way more factors feed into performance in a mission than pure damage calculations.Originally Posted by CategoryTheory Go to original post
Originally Posted by RichardOshea Go to original post
That makes a little sense on a weapon - doesn't matter if X is stronger than Y if you can't land as many shots with X.. which is constantly mentioned in these types of threads
but your comment makes exactly zero sense for a piece of gear. Regardless of bullets landed, the gear piece either provides more or less damage per bullet landed. Accuracy has zero effect [except Striker's].
What actually matters, is what % of bullets landed are headshots? How often are your targets out of cover? How many of the enemies have armor and how much? Are you facing a lot of Dogs & Chunga? How often are your talents procc'ing?
Gear can have Weapon Handling, which effects both Stability and Accuracy(bullet spread).Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
People like to break things down by the most simple metrics. The things they can wrap their heads around. And raw damage numbers are usually the easiest to use to highlight how well a weapon or a build does. But as you and others have said: It's not everything. And I also agree that people need to remember that. This is why the discussion around what the "best" AR is keeps going: There's a lot of additional factors besides just raw DPS. The people who only look at raw damage will say the Famas is best. But we've already seen good arguments in favor of the Police M4, Carbine 7, and G36.
But this is also why I spoke out so strongly against the combo of Fox's + Contractor's. Unless a person is sacrificing damage for weapon handling, there literally are no better options than those two gear pieces for shooting builds. That's a problem, IMO. And a failure of design.
You seem to have understood me? You have to hit to do damage so whether it's a weapon or a gear item the limiting factor is hitting the target. After that you raised the rest of the stuff, gear wise, that I was alluding to but I'd also throw in a load of situational limits that change from moment to moment. With regard to accuracy as a stat, it has different impacts depending on the weapon -- bolt action snipers VS LMGs for example. As it affects bloom it affects hit rate which in turn affects damage, but that is just one more of those things that I was alluding to as well.Originally Posted by LateNiteDelight Go to original post
My main point would be that even in a situation where you can mathematically show that a certain configuration can do more of x or y it doesn't follow that you should take that greater x or y as automatically making a better build. An obvious example would be a gun build with 200% CHD and 20% CHC Vs one with 100% CHD and 60% CHC. Similarly building snipers with too high weapon damage for the talents you're running -- I.e Headhunter Vs Focus.
Ultimately there is no correct answer to these discussions as you have the gear you have and you run the gear you want to run, even if it isn't mathematically the best on paper.
First off this IMO.
Shooting range means nothing because all the targets are stationary.
God rolled gear and the right items may look good on paper and the numbers but it means jack shi* if you are not hitting the target (even though it shows you are) in game not the shooting range.
Don't ask me why but Accuracy + Stabilty (even though the weapon feels accurate and stable) is much better than CHC + CHD.
Accuracy + Stabilty + Optimal Range (depending on weapon for this one) wins hands down for me.
Why? I ain't got a clue
EDIT: Give it a try, drop some CHC+CHD for stabilty + accuracy until you feel like it's maxed out, i do believe that it has diminishing returns at some point.....sometimes the best way to tell if your weapon is 100% stable to just shoot at a wall in the open world and see how it looks...aim for [all bullets land at the same spot].
This is simply wrong. While the difference between moving and stationary targets is indeed important, this does not mean the shooting range means nothing. It just means that the shooting range doesn't give you the complete picture. It still gives plenty of useful information.Originally Posted by Riflemania Go to original post
So you're saying that when I see a damage number popping up, I may not actually be doing that damage? That's a bold statement, and I believe it to be incorrect, though I'm willing to consider evidence otherwise.God rolled gear and the right items may look good on paper and the numbers but it means jack shi* if you are not hitting the target (even though it shows you are) in game....
No need to ask you why: if one is not hitting the target, one isn't doing damage. That's fairly obvious. So yes, one should be taking accuracy and stability into account and making appropriate trade-offs there.Don't ask me why but Accuracy + Stabilty (even though the weapon feels accurate and stable) is much better than CHC + CHD.
For you, sure. But this is why we do a proper analysis of individual builds, rather than making hard and fast rules. You're probably not using a rifle, for example, where you can change the stability on the fly by changing fire rate. Depending on how you play, it may be better to increase stability that way in certain situations (such as at longer range) than to take the hit on damage at close range because you prioritized stability buffs that have little effect at close ranges.Accuracy + Stabilty + Optimal Range (depending on weapon for this one) wins hands down for me.
Optimal range is the same. The drop-off isn't as bad as you might think: you always do over 40% damage even out to 99 m on all weapons, even on a Double-barreled Sawed Off with 8 m optimum range. (It was the firing range that led me to this discovery.) So depending on the ranges at which you work and the particular curve of the weapon, increasing optimal range may make no difference.
────────────────────────────────────────
But in the end, for what we're discussing in this thread, accuracy and stability are irrelevant because, no matter your hit rate, you get the same answer regarding use of Fox's Prayer and the like. So just set them as you please.
Here's why you get the same answer. In a high-red build you have +15% weapon damage (Wdmg) from your weapon, +15% from your specialization, and at least +60% from four red cores, giving you a minimum of +90% Wdmg. Accuracy and stability can be substituted for none of these buffs.
At that +90% Wdmg point, +8% on a different multiplier is equivalent to +15% Wdmg, so from that point on Fox's is better than Wdmg buffs for targets out of cover. Whether you decide to go with additional Wdmg or additional stability makes no difference: you use Fox's either way.