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

While it's true that Dust isn't what's defined as a tactical shooter, that doesn't preclude the use of tactics. Checking corners is one tactic, bunny-hopping is another. Different circumstances require different tactics.

It should also be noted that Dust has the potential to be a much more strategic shooter, if PC/EVE is ever fully realized or integrated.

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 guess it is tactical if you play tactically, if your roll with your bros and cover each other etc... those that don't do something similar will break against you easily hence such one sided matches. However when like minded people face your group those matches are the exciting strategic close matches.

edit speak moar better engrish

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.

SoTa calls someone noob with the phrase, "You probably don't even know the difference between tactics and strategy." Then goes on to define "tactics" with examples of strategy..... Good times, good times.

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.

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.

Back after doing stuff and checking the new responses
I see its still a mix of people with well thought out opinions and guys using the wide wide umbrella of tactics to justify their points and then claim I have only played this style or that style

Oh and guy that said bunny hopping is a cod thing that game actually discourages it, your aim gets ****** to hell and unless you dolphin dive it just increases your chances of getting shot, a lot of games have been moving away from bunny hopping for years

Bunny hoping is people taking advantage of poor hit detection in the first place - it's sorta pathetic. I can't wait for it to vanish and be replaced a mechanic to allow better use of terrain cover to give a more 'tactical' feel like you speak of.

The idea you seem to have trouble grasping is that Dust is not a tactical shooter but a throwback to arena run and gun shooters from days gone by and should be called as such not mislabeled as a tactical shooter