DUST Search - This game is not a tactical shooter

Fox Gaden wrote:

Delta 749 wrote:

Feeling bored and want to annoy some fanboys so lets talk about this

Now I see the whole "I like this cause its tactical and you need to think" idea tossed around fairly often but it just does not match up with the game
Bunny hopping, spraying fire wildly, massive health bars, and the whole LAV thing are all anathema to a true tactical experience
This is not the thinking mans shooter some fanboys like to tout it as but a throwback to the arena shooters of old only less polished

Now lets take the Rainbow Six games pre Vegas
Slow paced, needing to look, listen, check every corner, stick to cover for even in heavy armor a few shots is more than enough to put you down, something that truly was tactical since one mistake would cost you dearly

Now to you guys in the playerbase that do support this as a tactical game I want to know a reason why that isnt related to fittings since thats a fairly weak argument, and to everyone else what were some truly tactical games you enjoyed and wish CCP would take some examples from on how to improve this game

I think we use different definitions for GÇ£TacticalGÇ¥.

When I think of Tactical I think of what is needed for my team to win the match, not how to keep myself alive. I suppose that self preservation is tactical too, but I always tend to look at the game from the perspective of a squad or field commander.

Tactical:
- How many objectives do we need to hold, and for how long, to win this?
- If we only hold 2 objectives to their 3, are we far enough ahead to win anyway?
- If they are this far ahead of us, how many objectives do we have to hold to get ahead of them before the timber runs out?
- Should we play recklessly in order to win by Objectives, or should we play conservatively to avoid losing on clones?
- If there is a full squad at this Objective, and more at that objective, then which Objective is likely to be weakest.
- Which set of objectives would be easier to defend?
- Is that Supply Depot an asset to us, or a risk to our tanks?
- Should we hit this Objective in force, or split up and try to take two Objectives at once.

It goes on and on, but hopefully you get the point.

Edit: Oops, after starting to read through the thread I realized that I wandered into a First Person Shooter thread. Words definitely have different meanings in here.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1740	Posted - 2013.06.28 22:26:00 - [1] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Feeling bored and want to annoy some fanboys so lets talk about this Now I see the whole "I like this cause its tactical and you need to think" idea tossed around fairly often but it just does not match up with the game Bunny hopping, spraying fire wildly, massive health bars, and the whole LAV thing are all anathema to a true tactical experience This is not the thinking mans shooter some fanboys like to tout it as but a throwback to the arena shooters of old only less polished Now lets take the Rainbow Six games pre Vegas Slow paced, needing to look, listen, check every corner, stick to cover for even in heavy armor a few shots is more than enough to put you down, something that truly was tactical since one mistake would cost you dearly Now to you guys in the playerbase that do support this as a tactical game I want to know a reason why that isnt related to fittings since thats a fairly weak argument, and to everyone else what were some truly tactical games you enjoyed and wish CCP would take some examples from on how to improve this game I think we use different definitions for GÇ£TacticalGÇ¥. When I think of Tactical I think of what is needed for my team to win the match, not how to keep myself alive. I suppose that self preservation is tactical too, but I always tend to look at the game from the perspective of a squad or field commander. Tactical: - How many objectives do we need to hold, and for how long, to win this? - If we only hold 2 objectives to their 3, are we far enough ahead to win anyway? - If they are this far ahead of us, how many objectives do we have to hold to get ahead of them before the timber runs out? - Should we play recklessly in order to win by Objectives, or should we play conservatively to avoid losing on clones? - If there is a full squad at this Objective, and more at that objective, then which Objective is likely to be weakest. - Which set of objectives would be easier to defend? - Is that Supply Depot an asset to us, or a risk to our tanks? - Should we hit this Objective in force, or split up and try to take two Objectives at once. It goes on and on, but hopefully you get the point. Edit: Oops, after starting to read through the thread I realized that I wandered into a First Person Shooter thread. Words definitely have different meanings in here. These are not tough tactical questions. There is very rarely more than one right answer to any of these questions, and that correct answer almost always involves a simple brute force solution. When's the last time you were playing with a squadmate who has had more than a few hours of Dust 514 gameplay under their belt and you actually disagreed on the proper response to any of these questions? In my experience, it's very rare. This type of stuff is Videogames 101. Any game with objectives will have these "tactics," simply having objectives does not make a game tactical.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1743	Posted - 2013.06.28 22:40:00 - [2] - Quote Acezero 44 wrote: Dust is a Arcade shooter, COD ,. yep Arcade shooter. Arma 3 is a simulator. and many other good titles like World of tanks,.. If dust was a simulator the forums would be crying a 1000 times harder. I don't think it's such a heavy dichotomy. Dust 514 is definitely an arcade shooter, and CLEARLY has much more in common with CoD than with ARMA (or really ANY game that most players would consider "tactical"). But that doesn't mean a game has to be a "combat sim" to be more tactical.