| sundin13 said: Mostly talking about this article, which pretty clearly explains it: http://www.destructoid.com/the-last-of-us-multiplayer-dlc-is-not-okay-290010.phtml Those who pay money have a clear, objective advantage over those who do not. While the severity isn't on the level of Korean Pay to Win, its still worth complaining about |
The problem is that the guy isn't a serious player, because most of his points just show that he is one of the guys that rush againts people with guns that have a situational advantage. You don't try to fight a hunting rifle at distance, you don't take a shotgunner in close quarters. His points:
"The Frontier Rifle sits in between the Semi-Auto Rifle and the Hunting Rifle in terms of damage and fire rate; it takes two shots to down where the Semi-Auto takes three and it has a better fire rate than the Hunting Rifle. The result is a gun that downs more quickly than the other comparable weapons. Two shots from the Frontier Rifle can land before two from the Hunting Rifle or three from the Semi-Auto. In a one-on-one face-to-face encounter, the Frontier Rifle comes out on top."
You will never beat a hunting rifle at a direct face-to-face. It downs with one headshot and that's fairly easy with that gun. It beats the semi auto at medium distance, but it's useless at shorter distance while the semi auto isn't. Semi auto is the jack of all trades and it does it well.
"The Tactical Shotgun exists in a similar space as the Frontier Rifle. It isn't unequivocally better than the comparable base game weapons, but it enjoys some advantages. The most obvious benefit it has over the Shotgun and the Double Barrel is increased range, able to down in two shots from a range that either of the others would fumble to do anything worthwhile. Less apparent is that it can be equipped as a starting weapon where the other long shotguns are both "purchaseables," only attainable during a match after scoring enough points. Embedded in that purchase is the opportunity cost of not saving up for ammunition, weapon upgrades, or armor."
It's a higher range, much weaker shotgun. The guy compares it with the shotgun. Stop, just stop. Shotgun is a beast, you can kill 3 guys in face to face with some luck. No other weapons does that. Even in this case, it isn't invencible, you just have to know how to beat it. Tactical shotgun loses to semi auto in long distance firefights and loses to the burst rifle in close quarters and medium distances if the guy knows how to use it (I down any tactical shotgun noob hands downs with 1 or 2 bursts).
"However, the most egregious offender in the Tactical Weapons pack is the Crossbow. It's difficult to measure the advantage it gives because there is no other comparable weapon. It fires silently like the Bow but doesn't arc. Nominally, it can down in two shots, but it has a special ability that makes it absurdly powerful in some situations. After hitting an enemy with it, that enemy will bleed until he heals or is downed. This also lets the shooter see where the target is and what he's doing during that time period."
Purchasable weapons have a trade off. You have to allocate points that could be for perks to keep it on the loadout and you have to buy the weapon and its ammo with parts that could get upgrades and body armor. So it has to rock. The crossbow downs with 2 shots. That's awful. The hunting rifle does it, bow does it (it gets faster after level 2 upgrade) and other guns do it too. The only decent aspect is the bleeding, but that's simply too slow. Want a purchasable gun? Shotgun. Downs a guy with full body armor with one single shot to the legs. It spreads the bullets so you can hit 2 or 3 close targets simultaneously. That's something now other weapon does. That's why this one matters. The other good one is military sniper, because you execute the guy with the HS instead of downing him.
