I never talk about a person or their opinion without tagging them, so that they can respond with their views if they want.
@UYU_Kenny
@Civilize_85ers I know I mentioned competitive players but I was referring to the people you see on Twitter who think they’re amazing, some of them go around crying in supermarkets so I’m not taking them seriously, sorry. You linked me something from an actual good player though who actually knows what he’s doing and talking about, I respect Kenny.
I think it’s worth highlighting that his post was made 1 year ago, back when Gears 5 was a meme. I agree with a lot of his points, most infact. But I do question the competitive player’s view on something though. (In general)
I totally agree that the speed needed changing. All along I admit, I said that I wanted to see the slide speed reduced from 650uu to 600uu. We got that and it actually felt really good. My problem though was that the characters always felt too light but I never knew how to describe it. I knew that I wanted it to feel slower but I didn’t feel like lowering from 600uu was the correct choice. It’s clear now that the thing I wanted to see changed was acceleration, that is what gives the character the heavier feeling I was looking for. I like it.
This tuning gives us that and I believe it was needed, but I also wonder what it would be like to have this acceleration change at a slide speed of 690uu. I think that 600uu with instant acceleration feels okay but I think that 600uu combined with this acceleration change is why people feel it’s too slow (even though it’s actually not that different, you hit the same max speed very fast). I’m not saying that change needs to happen, I’d just like to play on it and see what it’s like. I would expect it to feel very similar to Gears 4. Gears 5 did make bouncing quite easy but I believe that to be down to the fact you can slide at any angle, no change to speed will change that.
This is where if Kenny reads this, I’d like his thoughts.
Why did I say 690uu when that’s faster than Gears 5 has ever been? Because Gears 4 was 690uu and to the best of my knowledge so was Gears 3. These games didn’t get complaints of the Air Back A and generally, if you were out of position, wall bouncing wouldn’t really save you unless you were unreal at it. These games also didn’t have shot delays after a wall cancel, why is it on games that are 90uu faster, with no delays, that the Air Back A wasn’t an issue? Surely it would have been worse? The game is 90uu slower now but apparently now has an issue that requires a shot delay. No, it doesn’t need a shot delay. The problem was the instant acceleration that allowed a player to reach a corner too quickly. Not even going based off opinion at this point, but going based off the past 10 years of Gears’ feedback. Gears with no shot delay and a heavier acceleration was totally fine and never once got a complaint of Air Back A that I remember ever seeing.
Bit of a ramble but my question is, based on that. Why is shot delay considered vital in Gears 5, when to the best of my knowledge it’s the slowest game we’ve had in a decade that now uses heavy acceleration in the same way as before?
It feels like a combination of 2 solutions that are clashing. I am confident that the removal of the delay after wall canceling, combined with the intoduction of acceleration would make Air Back As much easier to read and see coming. Sometimes if you want to stand on a wall and not look at an opponent sliding towards you, if you decide not to move then that’s your own fault.