Beta Anarchaeis
Killshot Corp
1
   |
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
To answer the OP, I am one of the posters of a tank hate thread. I have since recanted. However, it seems that there are far more people ready to defend tanks than otherwise.
I understand the logic behind investing SP into tanks and needing a reward from that (like any other aspect of the game), and I understand the risk that a driver makes when they fit an expensive tank and drive it onto the battlefield. It is also intuitive that infantry should expect a higher mortality rate than tanks.
However, there is a context for hating on tanks. They may not be good reasons if you take a full stock of the Dust combat system, but they are reasons nonetheless.
Discomfort with leveling
To start off, players like me who come from the old shooter tradition never really got over the leveling dynamic that has become standard fare for shooters. Until recently, RPG's were RPG's and shooters were shooters. Now everything (even strategy games!) contains some RPG elements, namely some type of leveling system.
Before shooters were married to RPG-style leveling systems, combat was all about who had the best aim and the best footwork. For those of us who were the guinea pigs for old school competitive shooters (the generation that came up right as arena shooters were already in decline), we prided ourselves on being the best shots around, not on our fancy gear.
Many of us felt an obvious preference for games like Halo where everyone started off with the same equipment and had the same access to pick-up weapons on the map. If you were a good player, a 1 vs. 5 firefight was fair game. A democracy of death.
So imagine our dismay when Call of Duty and other popular shooters started introducing equipment leveling. Various games have enjoyed mixed success in balancing this leveling with giving new players decent starting equipment while also rewarding those who stick around to unlock high-level gear.
In general, however, something fundamental has changed in shooters: it is no longer viable to simply be a good shot or a skilled close-range killer with your stick sensitivity turned all the way up. It feels "cheap" when someone nabs easy kills with better equipment or if we find ourselves facing an opponent like a well-fitted tank and realize that our own equipment is shoddy.
It takes getting used to the idea that the world of shooters is a little more complex, but with that complexity the old, tight combat mechanics have died away. This says something about what gamers expect from the whole shooter experience nowadays and maybe I'm behind the times.
Certainly playing the same old shooter under different titles over the years got boring for people like me. I stopped playing shooters, occasionally picking them up again with amazing titles like Shattered Horizon, which unfortunately never developed a solid player base and flopped (probably because the zero gravity combat was too difficult for most gamers).
So there is something to be said for the way that leveling, the dire need for teamwork, and the strategic complexity of shooters like Dust really inject a sense of longevity into the whole combat experience. For the first time in years I feel like I have found a shooter that I will likely play as long as I did the first Halo or even the original Goldeneye 007 for N64.
Even so, traditional gamers will continue having difficulty adjusting to the leveling intensive aspects of Dust. There are other factors that come into play, however, namely flawed game mechanics that don't really have anything to do with tanks or AV. |
Beta Anarchaeis
Killshot Corp
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
(continued from previous post)
Flawed game mechanics
Once again speaking from the experience of a traditional shooter fan, but also probably from a more universal perspective, nobody should ever spawn onto a battlefield only to be instantly gunned down. Spawn kills are the cheapest way to play the game, although those who take advantage of it when it's there can't be blamed since it is the developer's responsibility to provide adequate balance.
Even so it is maddening to spawn next to a tank, which has happened to me dozens of times. While I feel that mobile spawn points are fair game for spawn kills, the "default" spawn point should be some sort of safer zone or should at least not place the player directly next to the tank. Too often I have seen a driver sitting on the spawn point simply gunning down infantry as they materialize out of thin air. This, to me, is the primary reason for why tanks receive hate.
The second flaw that I see is how noob behavior is rewarded by the game mechanics. In every shooter that I have ever played with tanks, when a driver sits still and pummels away at infantry he gets blown up pretty quickly or else gets sniped out of his own tank. Not so in Dust.
The reasons for why this happens are manifold, as others have pointed out in other threads (see the one I linked to above). If AV is buffed, then the LAV will be even more vulnerable; the game is about specialization so someone should have to invest in AV in order to defeat someone who has invested in a tank; if the tank is nerfed, then there would be no economic incentive to use it, and so on and so forth.
The end result is that people can sit in a tank, rack up 32 kills spawn killing under-equipped infantry, and if they are lucky to face off against a team with no access to tanks or high-level AV gear, they win the match no questions asked. Low level proximity mines are like acupuncture for tanks; militia swarm launchers are like fly swatters.
This situation is great for players who don't really like shooters and fetishize gear. Just look at who defends tanks; they often don't even like playing infantry. What are they doing in a shooter? They will keep defending tanks and deny that there is any unbalance, and experienced infantry will keep hoping for better balance. |