|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
testguy242
44
   |
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I haven't played CoD in a long time, but if what you say is true and CoD is more "realistic" and tactical than Dust, that is very worrying.
I'd prefer for Dust to lean toward the "tactical shooter" side of things.
Maybe the drops suits have computerized aiming assist or something (hey, module idea), but using the sights/scope should still be noticeably more accurate. |
testguy242
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 06:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
xprotoman23 wrote:So your saying you just want to play an ADS shooter where everybody plays defensively and camps.
Yes, that's what I want, at least for the team that's defending. If you want to attack an enemy that's behind cover, you need to use tactics. That's what flanking, vehicles, and orbital strikes are for.
The thing that many of you who've never played EVE don't realize is that it doesn't enforce balance at all. You should never get into a fight you don't think you can win. You should use any and all advantages to destroy your opponent. EVE (and probably DUST) is not about fighting fair, in fact fighting fair is completely antithetical to EVE.
So if your opponent is camping (presumably on defense) then bring more friends or throw more money at them in the form of weapons, orbital strikes, hiring mercs, or whatever else you can. It's the EVE way. |
testguy242
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 19:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bones1182 wrote:At anyrate it is just foolish to try to use the sights at less 50-75m because the run and strafe speeds are to high for that. Your sights should be reserved for targets over 75-150m on the AR.
That means that strafe speed is too high.
I think DUST should play very similar to real-world infantry and combined-arms combat, except in the future with advanced technology. That means that sights should be necessary to be effective in most engagements and strafing shouldn't be that effective except at near point-blank range. Hip-firing also be only effective at close range or perhaps as suppressive fire while advancing into cover.
Also, this discussion about range has made me realize that there should be some sort of range-finder somewhere, probably built into scopes so we can tell how far away things are. |
testguy242
44
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 08:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yeah, my pet peeve is when people make the same tired response to the effect of "Realism? Like a game about (sci-fi/zombies/aliens/demons/vampires/whatever) is realistic LOLOLOLROFL"
When someone talks about "realism" in a fictional setting, they're talking about things working more or less like they would in real life with the exception of whatever makes it fictional. For a FPS about zombies, for instance, human capabilities and the way weapons work wouldn't change just because zombies exist.
To me the main point of most games is to immerse you in some sort of fictional setting and let you interact with it. If this game was about unicorns shooting rainbows at each other on a landscape made of marshmallows, I probably wouldn't be playing it. I play EVE because it lets you play the part of a spaceship pilot in a really well-developed virtual universe and I play DUST (at least the beta) because it lets you play the part of a soldier in ground battles in that same virtual universe.
If there's not a certain level of realism or at least plausibility, it kills that immersive feeling and reminds me that I'm just sitting there playing a video game. |
|
|
| |
|