The Coalition are right with the Weapon Tunings

(The Evil Moo) #11

Lancer’s too strong in core. They’d need to tone it down also.

I prefer comp to core - I hate the fact that you can LT aim from so far away with the gnasher and get solid damage. They need to also revert the silly wallbounce health regen delay.

(buscobuzzy) #12

I agree having 2 tunings is not a good idea. One reason is not all game play is available for each tuning, so if there is a game play you like that means you have to keep switching back and forth between the tunings. Plus on a stream TC said they would not do that because the community would have a very hard time to create matches. They also stated that if one tuning did happen more than likely it would lean more toward CORE because that is how gears was meant to be played. Lastly, with the high ping issues and it favoring high pingers with plenty of videos and evidence which TC plays “dumb” about doesn’t matter what tunning you use it’s still unbalanced. I hope it does get fixed in Gears 5 but as of now I think TC has not shown any sign they have or will after not fixing 2 years of issues with horde and versus.


Can you make this?

(thesuicidefox) #14

Spoken like someone that never played Gears 1/UE/Gears 2 at launch. Core is Gears 3 and nothing else. It’s the only Gears game that shares Core tuning. Competitive is the true Gears experience and how the game was ORIGINALLY.

(GB6 Kazuya) #15

That’s a negative on that one. Competitive is an everchanging mess that doesn’t cease to disappoint the more they change it.

(thesuicidefox) #16

Doesn’t change the FACT that Competitive is still closer to how Gears was ORIGINALLY designed than Core.

Also the reason they don’t change Core is because there is really no point because bad players will just complain en masse. Just look at when they took HB out of starters, how many threw a hissy fit? The general population is awful and don’t see that HB starts is bad for the game. And they don’t care either, they just want to “play how they want”. Nah, if something is ruining the game you change it.

Conversely, there is an actual reason to change Competitive because you need to smooth out the edges and keep things skillful. If something is wrongly dominating the Competitive landscape it needs to be adjusted. When teams are always using Boltok over literally every other secondary then maybe Boltok is too good.

(GB6 Kazuya) #17

People complain constantly on these forums, in general. Plenty of bad players from all modes. However there’s much more complaints about Competitive when you consider the fact that’s the tuning that TC are liable to change regularly.

:open_mouth: Fox! How could you! There was an alternative to taking care of the Hammerburst. Removing it was cheap and lazy. It was there for the whole duration of Gears of War 2 & 3. Granted it was powerful, but it could easily be countered. I’d have gladly suffered a brief nerf as opposed to losing the weapon as a start entirely. The weapon doesn’t ruin the game, people do that. That applies to many games outside of Gears.

Anyhoo, there’s continuous reasons to change competitive. It’s excessive to call it skilful, you can pretty much charge directly at a firing opponent, absorb at least 3 shots and get the gib. Then there’s the Lancer with it’s polystyrene bullets and the ridiculous regen delay. Certainly not what the original Gears was like.

(thesuicidefox) #18

And HB was OP in Gears 2 and Gears 3. When Gears 4 was in BETA HB was OP. When Gears 4 launched they BARELY nerfed it and it was underpowered. Then they buff it BARELY and it’s OP again. Also want to point out that HB in Gears 1/UE is more powerful than Lancer, but GASP it doesn’t negatively impact the game because it’s a pickup. Pickups are allowed to be stronger than the weapons you start with.

No there is no other option but to remove it. It’s either overpowered or underpowered. You can’t equally balance weapons that are mechanically different. You admit, it was powerful. If they nerfed it in any sense it would just be the beta version, which was proven to be worthless. There is no balance here, it’s either too much or too little. Make it a pickup and that balance is irrelevant, and it can be more powerful. The difference is that it’s now fair because you don’t have full teams using the weapon and you are required to go get the weapon to use it. Most of the places where it spawns is away from critical control points, so you are giving up map control/power weapons for it. That’s a trade-off to the power it offers compared to Lancer.

If you are shooting someone 3 times with Gnasher and they don’t gib or go down, then you are too far away. That’s not the weapon that’s YOU using it wrong.

If you have good aim then Lancer is a indeed a lethal weapon in competitive. You missing or using Lancer at the wrong time and getting killed is not the fault of the weapon. It’s the fault of the USER. People said Lancer in Gears 1/UE was weak too, but if you land headshots it will down you in less than a half second.

Regen delay wouldn’t be necessary if they just took out wallbounce cancel, which I’ve said before changes the core dynamic of the game, turning 1v’s into a game of speed instead a game of positioning. Wallbounce cancel ruins that dynamic, which then requires a redesign of maps or addition of strange mechanics to balance it.

(Noble Guardian) #19

I can’t agree with you more and as a starter, the following constructive thread should be ahead of them all:



Never mess with @GB6_Kazuya’s Hammerburst!

(J4CKA1) #21

Finally someone who gets it!!! TC let me like this post 300 times please. Thanks.


…And never mess with my Wallbouncing!!

(GB6 Kazuya) #23

Of course that makes sense, in the original Gears of War I barely used it but that all changed in Gears 2 when Hammerburst II arrived.

It’s thoroughly painful, Fox. Thoroughly painful knowing she isn’t there with me the entire duration of every match (not to mention worst case scenario where she doesn’t spawn at all :astonished:).

Anyway yes I know about the Gnasher distance, the example I gave was from when I was the one charging.

The Lancer in Gears of War 1 was very decent, it took more skill to use the original Lancer because the bullets didn’t instantly follow the aiming reticle and you had to shoot in advance to hit a running opponent, for example. Good times.

I like this. Old school.

(thesuicidefox) #24

I enjoy using the HB too. Also Boltok, Markza (Gears 4 only), and Retro (also Gears 4 only). But I’m not going to sit here and be upset I can’t start with these weapons because they are WAY more powerful than my Lancer. If I could start with them, anyone could, and then the game changes. No one would start with a Lancer if they had a more powerful option, at least not if they are trying to win.

HB should never have been made a starter. PERIOD. They did it to try and add variety to the game, but it just ended up ruining the original design. And just like with Core tuning, now we have a whole generation of players that are used to that and if you take it away they have a conniption. Less is more.

Yea I ran into some players in UE that I would see all the time in Gears 3 and guess what? They were complete garbage at the game. All they ever tried to do was move as fast as possible, instead of landing just the 1 or 2 bounces they need to be in the right position to win the fight. One guy in particular I won’t name, but all this guy did in Gears 3 was abuse the crap out of the Retro. It’s all he ever did and he was so obnoxious with it. He shows up in my match in Gears UE, and got bodied so hard. It was like I was playing someone that never played a Gears game before. Wallbounce cancel needs to go. We have all these weird rules and exceptions, the maps have less cover, weapons were made stronger to counter it (resulting in Core tuning). None of it is necessary if we took out the cancel. It doesn’t add anything of substance to the game. Yea it feels nice, but Gears UE felt great too (if you knew how to use cover, if you never played Gears 1 it probably felt like crap). I don’t see why we have to continue down this path where we try to satisfy bad players instead of trying to make a better game.

(GB6 Kazuya) #25

Yes, well I’m not upset. And especially not because I don’t get to start with it over it being more powerful. It’s power is not the primary reason I used it. I initially liked it purely because it was the Locust weapon. I prefer the Locust as a whole. Plus looks better and is a precision weapon. Suits me perfect.

There is plenty of people who used the Lancer over the Hammerburst when the option was there.

But back to the point. She’s gone as a starter after all these years, I’m in mourning. :joy: Pretty much anything against that translates as…

(Ninja Golf2K6) #26

The Coalition is posting again.


Brilliant rebuttal my friend. Brilliant

(VettleGT) #28

Agree 100 percent about Wall bounce cancel!!

(RedDoog888) #29

Great Point !!

Addressing the weapon tuning can not happen unless ping is addressed.

I think competitive tuning has a place for the very skilled, but not everyone is Diamond… so you give a diamond player a high ping and they never go down period.

I play execution last night to finally get my ranking. Weapon tuning is very hard on the lower ranked players, but i get it. What i think is unfair is to watch guys stand there when i am point blank with any weapon take hit and one shot me. They had 130 ping to my 32 ping.

Even in core i had 2 guys stand in the circle i lancer them both while the stood there then shot gansher guy move toward i hit 100%…

I do think what ever is offered in core should be in competitive.

(Yogy DMT) #30

While in an ideal world i would like to see “competitive” tuning become the universal tuning. I will say that having a comp tuning and a core tuning is a far better than just having a core tuning or something in between.