Would Escalation Be Better Shortened To Best of 9 Rounds?

In my opinion, Escalation being best of 13 rounds (7 rounds won) is too long and in Gears 5 it would be a better game mode if it was best of 9 rounds (5 rounds won).

If some weapon drops are not filled on some maps then it can be part of the strategy on how to play that map.

Maybe it will cut back on some of the quitting too. It would be interesting to see what is the average rounds-lost that people start quitting in Gears 4. From what I see after losing 5 in a row they generally start quitting.

What do you think?
Thank you.

5 Likes

First to 5 is perfect. 7 is a chore because;
-matches are usually not very close so half the players have to endure quite a long, miserable experience until they can go onto the next match.

-5 rounds won is more than enough to determine a victor.

-Quitters.

-Quitters.

-Quitters.

Save 7 for the pros. Just like friendly fire is for pros. Gamers don’t need 7 rounds to win.

6 Likes

No.

I have to disagree as well. Just based off the fact that I prefer the long respawn rounds in Escalation. When it gets to round 6 it’s a 20s respawn round (22s on 2.8). If it’s best of 5, when it get’s to round 4 it’ll be a 16s round before half time which I don’t think is punishing enough for dying.

3 Likes

I agree with you guys escalation shouldn’t be so long in a ranked match. If you want to play a really intense competitive match go play a scrim in a private match. Ranked matches you are playing for ranking not $50,000.

1 Like

I think 7 is too long, much prefer 5.

1 Like

I personally quite like the length, when it’s a good, relatively even match and youre slugging it out it goes pretty quick.

I think going forward a “mercy rule” might be better, or at least preferable imo. wherein loosing 4-5 consecutive rounds triggers either a vote to concede or possibly just ends it automatically to spare the loosing team any further losses in rank.

3 Likes

7 rounds to win is essential because of the respawn timers, weapon placements and the potential for the losing team to make a comeback. Mess with that and you mess up the gametype.

If the gametype is too long for someone then that gametype is not for them. Simple as that. Besides, if you look at match durations instead of number of rounds, KOTH is the most time-consuming versus gametype when the match goes to distance. Yet I don’t see anyone demanding lower score limit for it. The length of an Escalation match varies from 5 minutes to 20 minutes, depending on the level of opposition( usually ends up around 15-20 minutes ). While a KOTH match usually takes 10-30 minutes.

The fact that Escalation has survived for so long as an active playlist means that it works.

EDIT: As for the quitting part, that’s a problem of its own. It’s not a flaw in the gametype. Besides, people who quit do so because of their attitude. You can’t change that by changing the gametype. If the number of rounds was smaller, quitters would just quit in earlier rounds. Just like they do in other gametypes. If Escalation was the only gametype where quitting was an issue, using the number of rounds as an argument would be perfectly valid. But it’s not.

3 Likes

best of 5 would be great. or even 2out of 3.

1 Like

Agreed best of 5… best of 7 is such a drag

2 Likes

i like best of 5 better ,7 rounds if you get to evenly matched teams can go on for ever

1 Like

I rather see 5 but 9 is to many

Why stop at 9? Make it best of 5. It’s nearly always obvious who’s going to win within the first three rounds in my experience anyway.

make it 9, games can be too long thats why people quit a lot. it takes dedication to sit there for so many rounds! same thing with horde add an optio n to play up to 25 rounds.

faster games!

2 Likes