I’m assuming you didn’t include the full quote to save space, I hope you saw the other parts after the comma.
It’s hard to explain exactly what I mean, but it comes down to the Gears cover mechanics and the map design. Maps are broken into lanes, that you cannot freely move to and from in some cases. However, these lanes usually have intersecting LoS. Where in Halo you can literally come from any possible direction as long as you can jump high enough, in Gears you are locked to a particular lane until you fall back/push forward to the point they converge. And with cover mechanics working as they do in Gears, you can have LoS on someone’s POSITION, not them, and still impart the kind of power as if you could hit them directly. By that I mean if (going back to Gridlock) I cross you from the sniper lane to your side Boom lane, even if I cannot actually hit you you will need to take a new position ASAP or risk getting pressured into a 1v2 situation (with Boom in play no doubt). Shooting at someone’s position in Halo is a waste of bullets, where in Gears it actually works as suppressing fire. That’s not to say it’s impossible to provide suppressing fire in Halo, just that the mechanics work so differently that you have to approach the game from a different perspective. There is a very specific formula in Gears for what cover is safe based on your position in relation to the enemy and what paths are available to you. For Halo, such a formula would have a lot more unknown variables because you have many movement options with many paths from point A to point B. If any of that makes sense, IDK, I’m really sick and have been taking a lot of cough syrup so this might not make sense.
I don’t get it.
Why are they saying in the comment section that he’s being crossed by multiple lancers if only 1 persons delt damage showed up? If you’re getting hit by multiple people won’t it show something like
Loser44 Did 20% Damage [Finished]
KingNipple2010 Did 80% Damage
It depends, the only reason it less team oriented think in your eyes is because it has the potential to one shot so that means you wont require additional shots from a teammate.
However that doesnt mean it isnt helpful to a team nor not a team weapon, id still like a teammate to gnasher down an enemy with me for sure up close as apposed to randomly spraying his lancer.
That is skill though right? A skilled player team of gnashers will have the smarts to use lancers to keep them at bay but if it ends up close, a good team knows distance and how to close it, which enemy to go for first, which enemy can be downed with additonal gnasher fire and who to push to one shot.
I agree and disagree, for average players sure but good players will use the movement system to take that 5 down to 0 without being the ones randomly shooitng and hoping for a one shot. Its like me saying lancers are just people spraying each other down and seeing who gets downed first, of course its not as simple as, the same goes for gnashers.
I am not, im just baffled that the core lancer is the way it is and continues to do so, i didnt say remove crossing as i dont even know how that is even possible?
Being less predicatable doesnt mean less skill is being used, you could argue more skill is involved due to needing to be able to adapt quicky on the spot whereas predicaitbly going to certain spots and sitting in them can be learned quickly who has access to youtube. You cant teach a gnasher fight as its tied natural talent in the moment and experience.
I dont beleive this, i dont want it to be nor do i think it is which is why i brought up the issue. Its different from past games.
Overall i dont hate crossing, as i said i agree with the gridlock example though i do think you think the “tactics” is way more skillfull than it is, i think its more experience what you’re talking about.
Id say the difference between core and comp is that you have to take cover more and avoid damage whereas in comp you can take more shots allowing you to take more damage and try inflict more of your own before you cower away, you increase your chances when you also have another teammate fire with you and from a different angle.
Its similar to COD, when you first get the game you dont know the map and dont know the exact point where you will meet up with and enemy.
A few months go by and you can tell exactly when the opponent should get to a certain location based on where they spawned, you use that knowledge to pre aim and shoot as they get there.
No it’s not a team weapon because it doesn’t stack, not like Lancer does. When you have 1 Lancer it is easy to avoid and counter, plus you can expose yourself for about 1.2 seconds as that’s the average Lancer killtime. Add another Lancer and it’s kill potential increases exponentially, and your available exposure time drops by 50% of the Lancer’s killtime per Lancer shooting at you.
Gnasher, by contrast, doesn’t stack, at least not to the same degree as Lancer. A 1v2 Gnasher fight can be won by the lone player, but a 1v2 Lancer fight cannot. It’s why the pros will push and take position with Lancers to take 2v1’s anytime they can, because going in both Gnasher’s is a significantly higher risk that you both die. Using Lancer, your risk is almost 0. Also, in terms of exposure, Gnasher always has a potential 0 exposure time because it’s a one shot kill. That means whether you have 1 Gnasher or 20, you have the same amount of exposure time. Of course the cadence of the Gnasher firing is part of what makes this formula so great, since it oscillates back and forth between 0 and 1 (since each shot is space 1 second apart). In that way is the only way the exposure time stacks, since you could have shots firing on alternating rhythms but again it’s diminishing returns since anything more than 2 will be the same regardless. Gnasher’s range also poses a problem to stacking, since you have to be basically right next to the guy to get any benefit from stacking, at which point you are liable to be killed yourself.
There is skill at play, but there is also chaos at play. Chaos makes the outcome less predictable. You have to think, if the 10 player pile on is all the absolute best players in the world, some of them have to die. Can you reliably predict which ones? No. But then switch over to a tactical Lancer battle, 5v5, and it becomes a lot more clear who is more skilled and who has better strats because there is a lot less randomness to a series of events.
Look at a game like Mario Kart. Items are the chaotic element of the game, and it’s meant to even the playing field so that a bad player can play the game with a good player. Remove items and you basically just have a racing game, and at this point it comes down to pure skill, BECAUSE the chaos was removed.
If you want more proof just check you KD ratios per weapon. Check your friends too. You will see a trend where their Lancer KD is very high and Gnasher KD is low, usually hovering around 1.0 even for the best players. That’s because you can much more easily lose a Gnasher fight from a single mistake, or even just bad luck, than you are to lose a Lancer fight due to a similar mistake or bad luck. Don’t get me wrong, Gnasher battles take a lot of skill, but even the best players jump into the other guy’s shot from time to time and die, instantly, because of it.
PS. Also keep in mind I am talking about Gears 1/UE/Gears 4 competitive tunings. In these tunings, Gnasher does not have any range, nothing like it does in core. Core Gnasher can indeed stack simply because it does so much damage at range. But in competitive, Gnasher is only lethal for about 6 paces (1 roll length) and anything more is a waste. This is also a problem with core, as weapons are so strong they start to step on each others ranges. You can almost use Lancer like a Gnasher, or Gnasher like a Lancer where in competitive it doesn’t work that way.