Adapting isn’t the same as me liking it. I can adapt easily and still think its trash. Doesn’t make me any less of a fan for it, though.
9 Likes
You liked Nodezero’s choices?
Obviously not everything but a tad bit here and there. Better than trying to make a hollow attempt at a Gears 1 clone inside a Gears 5 shell and I like Gears 1. Lets assume I was 100% on board, though. What of it? Does that make me a fake fan or something? Who’s the arbiter of that? This whole “you’re not a true fan of something unless you like what I like” isn’t very compelling.
6 Likes
Not what I’m saying. Although I’m not the biggest fan of Gears 1 either. In fact I thought thecoalition did a really good job of polishing the turd that was Gears 1 with UE. I just haven’t seen many good reasons as to why this tuning stinks. Gears 4 and the start of 5 were terrible attempts at Gears 3. This new tuning takes the best of 1,2, & 3 at meshes it into a real good game. The reasons I’ve seen for saying it’s trash just ain’t good ones.
I’ve said my thoughts here a couple times but its clearly subjective on my take. Im not a fan of the slowed down roady and slowed down cover sliding myself. Not gonna point out anything objective but others seem to think they’re the all knowing gods in regards to how this game should be played so its whatever to me. I’ve recently taken the advice to just not play anyways. Definitely not as much as I have pre-tuning anyways.
8 Likes
played a bit last night and i still really dislike the tuning. this is definitely not a case of adapting or whatever. no clue why it was deployed outside the beta playlist in this state.
while playing, i had this thought in the back of my head, “i’m really not having fun.”
that’s something i’ve never thought of gears. sure, there have been points where i didn’t like x or y but not complete boredom like now. gowj was horrible but i never got this bored.
i quit playing last night after a few games when before i used to play for hours.
i rather play a slow and boring apex match where it’s all looting, running around and getting into one fight the whole game.
10 Likes
Thank you for the update.
1 Like
My argument was that if you implemented the One-Shot down, it would be far more frustrating than getting a 99% on a player and being killed.
Classic motte and bailey — you argued that you couldn’t fight back against a one shot down, which shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the game works. You fight back against a one shot down the same as you fight back against a gnasher chunk.
If we go with what you said here — that’s fine, it’s an opinion and I’m sure there are some people who disagree with you. In your attempts at explaining why it would be more frustrating, you claimed that it couldn’t be “fought back against” which is, again, a hilariously stupid reason.
Lol. That was clearly not your point.
I’m fairly certain that you’re the only person who could read my response and be completely unable to tell that it was sarcasm — I think everybody else got it.
I start by making fun of your “can’t fight back” reason, then just nonsensically name the first 5 or 6 things off the top of my head, the fact that you couldn’t decipher the sarcasm is mind blowing considering I’m making fun of “can’t fight back” the whole time, and sarcastically using it myself.
The scope of this argument that you seem to purposely refrain from, is the situation of getting a 99% hit on someone and switching it for a One-Shot down. You have provided no argument to support your desire for this, other than it would be your personal preference. But it is not a solution, you are only advocating for the switching of frustrations. - Therefore, a pointless and worse off implementation in my opinion.
I don’t need to provide an argument for my opinion, I just stated that I thought it would be better in my opinion — there’s no reason for it go any deeper than that. This isn’t a matter where you can be objectively correct or incorrect, it’s all personal preference and opinion — and if you argue for something poorly, as you have, it can make you look like quite the moron.
Why do I think one-shot downs would be an improvement? Gow4/5 are completely based on chunks, fighting in chunk range is the most inconsistent aspect of GoW and has been for 13 years. Due to numerous factors, servers, ping, screen delay etc out of your control, players will at times appear to be in chunk range on your screen, however not actually be in chunk range. For example, this clip:
When I shoot that player, they are in chunk range on my screen — you can go test it yourself like I did, that is chunk range. But I get 99% — I did what was required of me within the scope of the situation to get the kill, yet due to numerous delays, ping etc, I don’t get the kill. This exact same situation happens to people all the time, they’re in chunk range on your screen but they’re not actually in chunk range yet — that’s why when you test chunk range in privates it feels like it’s got an extra foot to it.
If there were a small one-shot down buffer zone, it would likely reduce the occurrence of these scenarios because while you still won’t get the chunk, you’ll at least down the person. As evidence, we can look to Gow1, 2 & 3.
This is just my opinion, goodluck arguing against an opinion.
You are simply stating that because everyone will have the same opportunity it therefore = fair,
Because that’s literally the truth.
Situation 1, 99% remains the same:
You get a 99% on your opponent and the opponent will then have the chance to kill you or not. If they miss you get the chance to easily finish them off.
Situation 2, implement One-Shot down:
You are on the receiving end of a 99%, you instantly get downed, there is no opportunity to fight back. So while your opponent is not frustrated because they got a down instead of a 99%. The roles have just been reversed, but in the reversed situation there is no opportunity to survive.
Why is the opponent frustrated by getting one shot downed? Also, to be clear, I don’t consider there to be any difference between a chunk and a one shot down within the scope of the situations I want to decrease the frequency of. There was a patch on Gow4 with a super far chunk range and that was by far the most consistent gameplay TC has provided to date.
Furthermore, what frustrations occur when players start getting for instance a 95% instead of a One-Shot down? Re-implementing the One-Shot down would only serve to exacerbate the issues within this situation.
If the one shot down were implemented that would increase the kill range to a point where it’s fairly obviously that you’re not in chunk range — again, they’ve built a game around chunking each other when that’s always been the most inconsistent aspect of the game, and then they made it more inconsistent by removing one-shot-downs.
Edit: If you can’t fight back against a one shot down, then you also can’t fight back against a Gnasher chunk. In a world where the chunk range is 0.1 meter instead of what it is today, I could advocate extending it to what it is today and you could say the exact same thing, the exact same argument. That’s why it’s so ridiculous.
3 Likes
I literally bought a series x to play 120 fps on my favorite game… the slower tuning has my xbox collecting dust, I almost feel like you guys are playing some sick joke on people who actually like Gears of war
6 Likes
You wanna play with us? We have so much fun when the whole band gets together
Please fix the game!
5 Likes
It’s plain and simple. The game is very boring now. There no motivation to play.
We had Rolls Royce tuning and they put us in a Prius!
This tuning should have never left beta!
5 Likes
this is what gutted me more than anything. the game was incredible on the previous tuning + series x. the feeling of fighting your controller to play the game was gone. it was fluid, it was responsive, in my opinion it was the best gameplay in gears history.
gone in a snap.
7 Likes
Not everyone…
…who doesn’t have fun…
What is so good about this tuning really ?
Because it seems to me it caters to people that aren’t quick thinkers or slow to reacting .
How can change the core speed of the game slower a year later into the game ?
Other titles don’t do it
Imagine fortnite slowing down the building mechanics ,there would be up roar as it’s their niche mechanic of gameplay . Just like fast paced wallbouncing is to gears of war .
And to have 1.2k comments in a thread says a lot they need to do something about this tuning .
It’s a very big stepwards back in my eyes . This is gears 5 I’m not playing a gears game that came out 10 years ago that people want because of good memories as you’ll never ever get them feelings/memories ever again
6 Likes
Bored
7 Likes
Yep still bored
5 Likes
Trinity
1 Like
No. Go back and read my first comment - “I guarantee players would find the One-Shot down more frustrating than 99%”.
I argued that you do not get a chance to fight back against a One-Shot down, while you are given a chance if it’s a 99%! Thereby meaning that the 99% is less frustrating - Please read properly!
It is fact. It’s not an opinion. You are given no chance to fight back if you get hit by a One-Shot down. So on the receiving end you have literally zero chance of reacting to it, compared to a 99%. Therefore, forms my opinion, that the One-Shot down is more frustrating and less fair than a 99%! - Please get it right.
Sarcasm or not, you were wrong and are continuing your attempt at using it as a supportive argumentative point. Excuse my paraphrasing: " a Chunk = Instant death and a 99% = a Oneshot down, so they’re the same because can’t be fought back against". - While this throw away statement is technically true, they are fundamentally different. They are different due to the very reason they occur, distance. Try using this same logic with a NASA engineer e.g “Hovering above the moon is a the same thing as landing on it, because the astronauts can still jump out”. - You cannot look at this situation with flawed logic.
Oh boy. Calling me a moron lol. Okay.
Firstly, I’m not arguing against your opinion, I’m arguing the facts. - The One-Shot down mechanic is less fair than the current 99% mechanic, which can be objectively concluded, when comparing the outcomes each provide.
Secondly if you offer your opinion, you’d better have some logical reasoning behind it and preferably facts, especially if it’s a controversial topic like the One-Shot down. Otherwise you could make any claim you liked and declare it truth because it’s “your opinion” - The sky is blue and pigs don’t fly, so deal with it.
From your own words the inconsistencies have been there for every single game, whether a One-Shot down was implemented or not. So by your very own logic a One-Shot down would not change those inconsistences. But you did list several reasons for those inconsistencies, ranging from servers to input delays, which is where the true issue lies. So why are you advocating for the re-implementation of a mechanic that will not fix the inconsistencies, as you yourself admitted were there in the previous games? Not forgetting the very reason the One-Shot down was removed was because it was so widely hated by the majority of the player base due to the frustrations it created!
And you called me the moron with a poor argument? lol.
We all know what it’s like getting a 99%. But I’m guessing you can’t remember what it’s like getting hit by a One-Shot down. It is definitely far more annoying, to the majority of the player base, getting hit by One-Shot down from what feels like a mile away, due to lag, servers and all the other reasons you listed, and you won’t have a chance to react. And you can go get your evidence of that from Gears 1, 2 & 3. It’s one hit and you’re down. Imagine testing that on your private matches with the increased range lol. - Therefore, yet again is why the 99% is the least frustrating and fairer mechanic of the two.
So while your logic is correct that it would reduce the occurrences of ‘not’ receiving a kill, due to the very omission of the 99% mechanic. It would just be replaced with being down and killed by one shot from even further away. Therefore, just swapping one frustration for a worse one and it doesn’t do a thing to solve the inconsistencies. If you find chunks so annoying (I assume so from your previous comments about it) just have a little think about how annoying it would be getting “killed” from even further outside the gib range, with your suggested implementation.
Okay. By your logic the current system of getting a 99% is therefore fair, so why would you want to change it? - and I quote “it’s literally the truth”
The difference is, we can compare the two opportunities and determine which is fairer. You said it yourself, the inconsistencies will be there regardless of each mechanic, the frustrations of either getting a 99% and being killed yourself can be compared with being killed from outside the gib range due to a One-Shot down and the fundamental workings of each mechanic can be compared. You can then make an objective determination of which is better. - Are you getting it yet?
As I said above, you must not remember what it’s like getting hit by one shot from miles away and going down - Did you even play the previous Gears games or were you even involved with the forum at those times?
I hope my answer above also answers the reasons why it is frustrating. Also, as I said above you cannot use flawed logic, a chunk is a chunk for a reason and a One-Shot down is a down for a reason. They are fundamentally different, which is the very reason these situations occur. So you cannot consider them the same just to push your argument. But I do know what you’re trying to say - but it’s just wrong, as the distance before a gib or One-Shot down will always remain a constant, it will just change with distance. - If the gib range was 5uu then the point at which you will get a 99% hit instead of a gib is at 5.*01uu. If you change the gib range to 6uu the 99% will be at 6.*01uu. - Understand?
Increasing the gib range does not fix inconsistencies, that have root causes elsewhere. That’s like using using a plaster, when you need glue. So while it might feel more consistent it doesn’t fix the root issue and only creates issues elsewhere. Just like the bullet magnetism, it made things feel more consistent, because your shots would do a U-Turn to hit your opponent lol. But on the receiving end it felt less consistent, because you couldn’t use movement to effectively dodge shots.
An increased gib range is terrible for gameplay in general though. It impacts on the usefulness of alternative weapons. For instance, if you can out dps a Lancer at mid-range with the Gnasher, which was the case in Gears 4 and is currently the case in Gears 5, then it is flawed. The game plays best when each weapon has their own unique niche within the game and supports a ‘time to use mentality’, if one weapon impedes too much within another’s niche it creates flawed gameplay. For example, a big gib range increases the ‘time to kill’, but decreases the skill level and restricts movement and playstyles, when compared to a shorter gib range. The same way stronger rilfes, slow the game down, promotes camping, limits playstyles, when compared to slightly weaker rifles. It’s a massive balancing act, which if is catered too much either way ruins the game for different people, which is why it’s even more frustrating when TC does not provide evidence of their “data” or even acknowledge that there are other variables skewing their data, some seemingly done on purpose by them e.g making Gears 5 free with Games for Gold = more players = their justification for this tuning.
The fact that you think this is ridiculous, is ridiculous. The very fact of reducing or increasing the Gnasher’s gib range, creates alternate “fight back” ability, which can then be compared to one another to determine the best one e.g a shorter gib range allows more “fight back” ability, as the player has more time and can move in and out of the gib range easier due to the characters distance and speed of movement, while with a longer gib range it is the reverse.
Now I offer you an olive branch, while we may not agree on the implementation of the One-Shot down for various reasons and continuing this argument is pointless. We can both agree that the root cause is to do with lag, delays, net code, servers, frame buffers etc. So until the root issue is dealt with, no matter what you do to certain game mechanics the game will continue to be frustrating.
Having said that, the previous tuning with an Xbox Series X felt the best and most consistent that Gears has ever felt. And this current tuning just had to ruin it. - Thanks TC.
1 Like