Swords or Shots

[ROLO]

Hey everyone this thread is as the title suggests what do you prefer overall as your go to weapon types between sword and shots

[Crazyleo]

for me; this kind of question is kinda rhetorical: Since I really only play rangers, the obvious answer is Shots. However; my racast also wields a katana (specifically the Yamigarasu).

[ROLO]

personally I choose sword of course I am a hunter so hey I currently wield the chainsawd and I heard yamigarasu isn't bad

[Crazyleo]

It's a decent sword I'll admit; and considering I'm a ranger, that kind of weapon is a god send. When you add 50 hit on it; it's going into awesome territory.

[ROLO]

Wow! Well hell yea id need to add my god arm in order to compete id need 4 actually XD

[gigawuts]

If I can pick either one, then it depends on the spawns. Shots are useful for lines of gilchics, for instance. It has wider reach and keeps them knocked down so they can't shoot you. Swords are useful for clusters of vulmers, since only the one or two at the front will be able to hit you and swords will hit more targets (up to 7, right?).

But, both have low ATA. If you're having trouble hitting things a nice partisan with hit might be better. Partisans also have wider angles, but less reach iirc.

[BERNIE_ORAN]

Shots - much more efficient for clearing rooms. Even if all the enemies aren't grouped together, such as if there is 1 or 2 enemies to the sides or at the back, the only thing you need to worry about is the angle you're shooting from, and you can hit them all.

I like to use Shots with my main also - a RAmar with both high ATP and ATA, meaning I can land a heavy attack 99.9% of the time.

[Knifedera]

I've Never Liked Rangers, I Always Use Hunters Or Forces. Shots Are Very Decent For Their Range, But Swords Usually Have Way More ATP Than Them. I Can't Say Either Way, But Swords Definitely Have More Power On Their Side.