Argument against 3rd weapon (pistol sidearm) in Multiplayer

[Ma1agate]

This is thread is intended as an intelligent discourse on gameplay design in multiplayer. I would appreciate it if the "OMG U R A N00B, GoW iz the best game Evar!!1!" Commenters would think about whether their posts are adding anything to the conversation before replying. This is not meant to be any kind of criticism, I'd just like to voice a concern. That said, I don't think that the pistol sidearm(or any third firearm) should be included in Multiplayer. Here's why:

Gears of War's gameplay, in regard to weaponry, is being designed around the pick-2-weapons system that Halo popularized. That system is based on the idea that the player needs to be smart about which weapons to carry, so as to be the most effective in the combat situation(s) in which the player will find him/her-self. When faced with this situation, most players will opt to select weapons based on which combination offers the most coverage across what I call the Combat Spectrum, in order to be as effective as possible in as many situations as possible.

The Combat Spectrum covers all the combat situations, or more specifically, the combat needs one will have. Sometimes there will be close quarters fighting, where a high-damage weapon that can put an opponent down quickly(such as a shotgun) will be the most effective. Other times there will be protracted mid-range battles, where an accurate rapid-fire weapon(like an assault rifle) is the best choice. Obviously the Combat Spectrum is pretty wide and the two-weapon system is designed around the idea of balancing your capabilities while still making sure you have disadvantages in certain situations, thereby assuring more balanced gameplay and a need for tactical sense.

In a pick-two-weapons system where a player must make specific choices as to what kind of effect he/she will have on the battlefield, I don't see the idea of every player having a third weapon to fall back on as a good one.

Obviously, a fall-back sidearm can't perform better than any of the other "major weapons" on the field, or else you'll start to see players using their sidearms instead of more significant weapons. So that already means the sidearm will pale in comparison to the abilities of other weapons and will probably rarely be used.

If a player decides to run around with a sniper weapon and a rocket launcher but still has the option of falling back on a sidearm, that does some things that ruin the two-weapon system:

1) It allows the player to opt-out of using the weapons he or she has chosen and to instead use a third weapon(the sidearm) that can fill in gaps in the Combat Spectrum that the player hasn't addressed with his or her weapon selection. This aids in preventing the player from feeling any serious repercussions(as in death) for making bad weapon choices. If an opposing player sneaks up on me while I'm sniping, he's going to be too close to snipe, and he's going to be too close to use rockets on because of the splash damage, so I'll fall back on my sidearm and still have a chance to take him out.

2) The sidearm also allows for more "one man army" type play, because if I still have a chance against the guy that snuck up on me even though I made a stupid decision and hogged all the power weapons, I need to rely less on my teammates for cover because I still have a sidearm to defend myself with.

Sure, I will still be at a disadvantage because my attacker will probably have an assault rifle or a shotgun against my pistol(don't forget the grenades!). But the fact that I still have a fighting chance even though someone got the drop on me means that I can run off on my own and ditch my team if I feel like it; and the worst thing that will happen is that I only have a pistol and grenades to fall back on.

Now, some of you might say "Well what if I run out of ammo for my other two weapons?", well, the two-weapon system does allow you two weapons. If you run out of ammo on both your weapons and haven't either retreated to find more or haven't killed anyone to get more, then I think you probably deserve that bullet that's coming for you. Don't forget, you'll also have grenades for indirect fire, not to mention teammates that should be there to support you.

I think the inclusion of a sidearm to fall back on in addition to the two weapons and grenades that players will have at their disposal is going to significantly affect gameplay because the impact of bad decisions in a fight will be significantly lessened. There's already the revive-your-comrade ability(which I like a lot) that softens the impact of a bad tactical decision, a sidearm is just going to make the impact even less.

I can understand having a sidearm in the campaign, and with the game being a few months from release omitting the sidearm wholly from Multiplayer may not be feasible, but I would at the very least like to see an option to turn off sidearms in Multiplayer.

~Ma1

[eliek02]

Excellent write-up, this really clarifies things and reinforces the importance of balance.

[ban381]

You bring up great points, and i can say i almost fully agree with you. The reason i say almost is because while all your points make perfect sense to me, that is because i play halo. One thing we have to keep in mind is that we dont have exact details on how multiplayer works. Power-weapons might spawn no matter how many characters have it.

There could be a good reason why sidearms are available in multiplayer - or maybe they wont be in there at launch. I myself, have a greater concern about how grenades will affect multiplayer - since that this game seems a little slower paced then most FPS (but then again, it might not be a big deal because we really dont know if grenades have a delay before/after, etc..)

[Zoso Fan]

OMG U R A N00B, GoW iz the best game Evar!!1!

just kidding, that was a good write up! I hope they have the feature to turn off sidearms, but IMO they should keep them in the final build. Just my opinion... :)

[FullMetalCog]

I hear what you're saying but this game is about unloading on your opponent. There will be ammo packs strewn about the levels so running out should not be an issue. In most tactical shooters, your sidearm is generally useless anyway. You might get the lucky kill here and there but that's what makes it fun. Personally, I don't want to worry about conserving my ammo. I want to put as much lead in the air as possible. If you're hosting a room set guidelines for sidearm useage. If there are no sideram on'off options, which I doubt there will be or should be, it should be up to the host to set his or her own room rules. Game on!

[Rohawn]

If you have a rocket launcher and a sniper rifle and you are hanging with 3 others on your team and the enemy gets the jump on you right around the corner, too close for sniping and rockets, risking blowing your teammates if you shoot. Bustin' out the pistol would give you some sort of ability to help out. If you come up behind someone who has to switch to a pistol, I think it's fair to give them something to fight back with otherwise "Uh-oh, I have a rocket launcher and a sniper, geuss I should just sit here and die, that sucks.".

[Koric101]

I understand you're points, but I don't really agree. Like Rohawn said, you have 3 teammates and the least you can do is help them out. If you get caught with that combo against an AR or somen, you will most likely die in the time it takes you to switch but if you do, that little damage doesn't really make a difference. In my opinion anyone using a pistol can do damage, but is probably not going to kill someone with any other weapon. And again, it isn't halo, I also compare it to halo but you have to remember it is a different style of playing. I would not be sad to see the pistol as a third weapon and I don't think it will change gameplay much. Grenades on the other hand interest me. I can't wait to see how they will work in MP.

One other thing games like GRAW lack in my opinion is that they change WAY too much in switching from Campaign to Versus. I think for the most part, the controls and such should stay the same. I think Gears is doing that very well.

[Uday23]

i have no problem with the pistol sidearm and i think it will be fun to use...

[ban381]

If you have a rocket launcher and a sniper rifle and you are hanging with 3 others on your team and the enemy gets the jump on you right around the corner, too close for sniping and rockets, risking blowing your teammates if you shoot. Bustin' out the pistol would give you some sort of ability to help out. If you come up behind someone who has to switch to a pistol, I think it's fair to give them something to fight back with otherwise "Uh-oh, I have a rocket launcher and a sniper, geuss I should just sit here and die, that sucks.".


His argument is that if you choose a sniper and a rocket launcher, then you deserve to die because you put yourself in that situation. Its the trade off between whoring powerful long rang weapons for yourself, instead of just taking a sniper rifle and letting a teammate take the rocket launcher. So yes, you should just sit there and die, you should of let one of your teammates hold the sniper while you hold the rocket - hes basically sayin that third sidearm is promoting whoring of power weapons by one player.


Like Rohawn said, you have 3 teammates and the least you can do is help them out.

Again, if you want to help out your team, let them carry one of the power weapons. It inforces teamplay.

[Koric101]

His argument is that if you choose a sniper and a rocket launcher, then you deserve to die because you put yourself in that situation. Its the trade off between whoring powerful long rang weapons for yourself, instead of just taking a sniper rifle and letting a teammate take the rocket launcher. So yes, you should just sit there and die, you should of let one of your teammates hold the sniper while you hold the rocket - hes basically sayin that third sidearm is promoting whoring of a weapon by one player.

And I agree with that, I think tho that a pistol will never kill someone with an AR. If you have a pistol and can kill someone who suprized you with it (they have to surprise you or you could rocket them) then if you kill them, I think you deserve the kill.

[ban381]

Thats why im not 100% agreeing with him. As of right now - none of us now how much impact that pistol will have on Multiplayer (except those who played the demo).

[Uday23]

BTW i have seen a video that first showed the sniper a while back, and marcus no-scoped a guy with it, so just to tell u guys it will be fairly easy to kill someone from close-range with a sniper, if u hold down the left trigger u go into aim mode, aka go into 1st person and hold weapon next to ur face, the sniper is no different it is used just like the shotgun or pistol...in the aim mode, but if u click the right analog down then u go into zoom, so i think no-scoping will be fun and fairly easy from close range, just wanted to clear that up, continue ur talk about sidearms...

[Koric101]

Thats why im not 100% agreeing with him. As of right now - none of us now how much impact that pistol will have on Multiplayer (except those who played the demo).

Agreed. I could be wrong and it turns out to be like the Halo1 pistol and then it would screw us over lol. We'll wait and see, but I like the idea of a third weapon.

[Koric101]

BTW i have seen a video that first showed the sniper a while back, and marcus no-scoped a guy with it, so just to tell u guys it will be fairly easy to kill someone from close-range with a sniper, if u hold down the left trigger u go into aim mode, aka go into 1st person and hold weapon next to ur face, the sniper is no different it is used just like the shotgun or pistol...in the aim mode, but if u click the right analog down then u go into zoom, so i think no-scoping will be fun and fairly easy from close range, just wanted to clear that up, continue ur talk about sidearms...

Can u get me a link to that vid or somen, I'd like to see it.

[Rohawn]

His argument is that if you choose a sniper and a rocket launcher, then you deserve to die because you put yourself in that situation. Its the trade off between whoring powerful long rang weapons for yourself, instead of just taking a sniper rifle and letting a teammate take the rocket launcher. So yes, you should just sit there and die, you should of let one of your teammates hold the sniper while you hold the rocket - hes basically sayin that third sidearm is promoting whoring of power weapons by one player.


Yes, I said that you are pretty much doomed to die, but at least you can do something and you have now learned a lesson that you shouldn't do it if thats what how you would like to be. Since you have to press a button to accurately shoot which leaves you exposed, i'm pretty sure you will be annihilated quite quickly. I doubt anyone would think to take two power weapons simply because they have a pistol to use, and maybe Epic has taken this into consideration. I also think that if perhaps the reason one person has two good weapons(Which is entirely realistic because of the sniper, rocket launcher, gatling gun and something about a bow?and it's unlikely everyone will be alive or in the area to each grab something good..) that he should easily be killed. Since the payoff of you kiling him takes good weapons from the enemy and potentially gives them to you, it should have some sort of risk to it.

[Uday23]

Can u get me a link to that vid or somen, I'd like to see it.

here is the link, the video is old but pretty cool, the video is 13:43 long but right about 13:10 marcus pulls out his sniper(u can tell by the the blue glow of the scope) and then u will see him go into aim mode but NOT ZOOM and techinically no-scope a enemy!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8090781624844571361&q=gears+of+war

BTW about 4:50 into the video u can see a lil bit of Pistol action, it seems to be a pretty good weapon, its definatly not worth less like some pistols in other games, i think it will be a fun gun to use especially in mp!

[ban381]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3719908412199702049&q=miau+miau

Great tactics

[Rohawn]

here is the link, the video is old but pretty cool, the video is 13:43 long but right about 13:10 marcus pulls out his sniper(u can tell by the the blue glow of the scope) and then u will see him go into aim mode but NOT ZOOM and techinically no-scope a enemy!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8090781624844571361&q=gears+of+war

BTW about 4:50 into the video u can see a lil bit of Pistol action, it seems to be a pretty good weapon, its definatly not worth less like some pistols in other games, i think it will be a fun gun to use especially in mp!




That could have been the zoom, I don't know because I haven't seen anything else but it did zoom in on him before he shot.

[Uday23]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3719908412199702049&q=miau+miau

Great tactics

LOL, what the crap:confused: :D

[chron1caust]

I think that a 3rd gun to carry is good, but ya you shouldnt whore the most powerful weapons for yourself either

[Rohawn]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3719908412199702049&q=miau+miau

Great tactics


LOL love the first two cats.

[Uday23]

That could have been the zoom, I don't know because I haven't seen anything else but it did zoom in on him before he shot.

he did NOT zoom in on the enemy, he only pointed at him with the crosshairs for the "aim mode" point of view, if he would have zoomed then he would have looked into his scope, and then the target would look to large inside his scope, btw the whole screen would have changed into a scoped point of view if he did use the scope...

[Koric101]

That could have been the zoom, I don't know because I haven't seen anything else but it did zoom in on him before he shot.

Its not the zoom, that was LT, he just looks down the sights.

Cool vid btw, but it's from last year some time, it's probably changed a lot.

[Uday23]

Back to the topic, what about nades, u can just as easily throw a nade near the guy thats trying to sneak up and kill u, i mean if u have a RL and a sniper and u have a lil pistol u can freakin blow the punk up with a grenade, so i think that should be considered a 4th weapon, but i dont care b/c i like the whole weapon set up...

[Uday23]

Its not the zoom, that was LT, he just looks down the sights.

Cool vid btw, but it's from last year some time, it's probably changed a lot.



THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING, YA THE VID IS QUITE OLD, I JUST POSTED IT TO PROVE MY POINT, I DO THINK IT HAS CHANGED ALOT, BUT I STILL HOPE U CAN NO-SCOPE LIKE THAT!:D

[Koric101]

Back to the topic, what about nades, u can just as easily throw a nade near the guy thats trying to sneak up and kill u, i mean if u have a RL and a sniper and u have a lil pistol u can freakin blow the punk up with a grenade, so i think that should be considered a 4th weapon, but i dont care b/c i like the whole weapon set up...

...course that'd blow u up... just like the rockets, but like u said, I like the setup too.

[Uday23]

...course that'd blow u up... just like the rockets, but like u said, I like the setup too.

what i was trying to say was for all the ppl who are complaining about the siderarm pistol and how players can bail themselves out from bad close range situation and etc, the nades are just at "cheap" if not more, but again i dont care b/c i love the set up:)

[Koric101]

what i was trying to say was for all the ppl who are complaining about the siderarm pistol and how players can bail themselves out from bad close range situation and etc, the nades are just at "cheap" if not more, but again i dont care b/c i love the set up:)

That pretty much sums up my position.

[Uday23]

That pretty much sums up my position.

lol, so u agree with me...;)

[SkateXer99]

just one thing... there is no actual 2-weapon system. In total you have 4 weapons, Grenades, Pistol, and two more, based on what you pick up. While pistol isn't interchangeable, in Halo it counted as a changeable weapon, so you really only had 3 weapons (including nades). And this game should seriously not try to be like Halo by getting rid of the pistol, making it 3 weapons. So what if there's whoring, it's not like there's weapon spawns.

[Koric101]

lol, so u agree with me...;)

...I guess, if i understood ur post right lol,

For clarification, I like the idea of a pistol and don't think it will change gameplay that much. I also don't think it will allow kids to be weapon whores. I like the setup pretty much the way it is being revealed. Grenades look cool too, because you have to wind up, giving your enemies the chance to react.

[Uday23]

...I guess, if i understood ur post right lol,

For clarification, I like the idea of a pistol and don't think it will change gameplay that much. I also don't think it will allow kids to be weapon whores. I like the setup pretty much the way it is being revealed. Grenades look cool too, because you have to wind up, giving your enemies the chance to react.

ya, and their arent only frag nades, their also smoke and flash so most of the time the players wont have too many strong weapons!

[Koric101]

ya, and their arent only frag nades, their also smoke and flash so most of the time the players wont have too many strong weapons!

It'll be interesting to see how smoke and flash nades work. I doubt there is a vid out but if anyone comes across one I'd love to see it. (sorry for straying off topic).

[Rohawn]

he did NOT zoom in on the enemy, he only pointed at him with the crosshairs for the "aim mode" point of view, if he would have zoomed then he would have looked into his scope, and then the target would look to large inside his scope, btw the whole screen would have changed into a scoped point of view if he did use the scope...


Do you know that for a fact or are you simply assuming because pretty much every game is like that?

[Uday23]

Do you know that for a fact or are you simply assuming because pretty much every game is like that?

FACT, he didnt zoom, while in zoom with any shooter games do u every see ur player, NO, trust me i watched the video 100 times i know that he did NOT zoom, he just went into aim mode...w/e it doesnt matter to me what u think, i just wanted to let all u guys know abou that

RECAP:

It has the normal left-trigger 'targetting' zoom, but you can also click the right thumb stick to zoom in closer, but in that video marcus was not using zoom

:) :)

[Rohawn]

FACT, he didnt zoom, while in zoom with any shooter games do u every see ur player, NO, trust me i watched the video 100 times i know that he did NOT zoom, he just went into aim mode...w/e it doesnt matter to me what u think, i just wanted to let all u guys know abou that...:)


I'm not saying you are right or wrong, or attacking your opinion or whatever it is you think, i'm simplying wondering if you have facts to back up your statements.

[Uday23]

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, or attacking your opinion or whatever it is you think, i'm simplying wondering if you have facts to back up your statements.

the facts are in the video, did u see marcus zoom? NO, i am sorry if u are confused but this is it, the sniper has the normal left-trigger 'targetting' zoom, but you can also click the right thumb stick to zoom in closer, marcus did not zoom in that video!

can u just trust that i know alot more about Gears than u and am ALOT crazier about the game

[Rohawn]

the facts are in the video, did u see marcus zoom? NO, i am sorry if u are confused but this is it, the sniper has the normal left-trigger 'targetting' zoom, but you can also click the right thumb stick to zoom in closer, marcus did not zoom in that video!

can u just trust that i know alot more about Gears than u and am ALOT crazier about the game

Actually you say that when you zoom in a game that you don't seee your character, in this case Marcus. In the video, right before he shoots at about 13 minutes, he prepares to shoot a locust. Everything becomes closer, like a zoom, and you can only see the very tip of the gun. If you watch him go into ''Targetting'' zoom with the shotgun or AR, you can see him and the gun, with the sniper, it is not the case.

[Uday23]

Actually you say that when you zoom in a game that you don't seee your character, in this case Marcus. In the video, right before he shoots at about 13 minutes, he prepares to shoot a locust. Everything becomes closer, like a zoom, and you can only see the very tip of the gun. If you watch him go into ''Targetting'' zoom with the shotgun or AR, you can see him and the gun, with the sniper, it is not the case.

the targeting zoom is a lil different for evergun, when sniping u hold the gun alot closer than when u have a shotgun, AND i now have proof that he wasnt zooming because i found a screenshot(found it a while ago) that shows the sniper in Zoom mode(not targeting) here it is, btw u need to scroll down to almost the bottom of the page, hope this clears things up for u

http://www.thegamefeed.com/features-a6bba5a36b035b05b2be16ea1366c508.html

[Rohawn]

the targeting zoom is a lil different for evergun, when sniping u hold the gun alot closer than when u have a shotgun, AND i now have proof that he wasnt zooming because i found a screenshot(found it a while ago) that shows the sniper in Zoom mode(not targeting) here it is, btw u need to scroll down to almost the bottom of the page, hope this clears things up for u

http://www.thegamefeed.com/features-a6bba5a36b035b05b2be16ea1366c508.html


Good find. So you know, I was simply asking you to provide facts, and thank you for doing so.

[Uday23]

Good find. So you know, I was simply asking you to provide facts, and thank you for doing so.

LOL i would have shown u that earlier but i forgot about it, lol atleast everything is cleared up and now u know that i am right!(just like always) jk lol, anytime u got a question/issue just ask me;)

[Snake]

Well, to put a spin on this, the U.S. Army has stopped equipping all soldiers with a 9mm Beretta sidearm, perhaps to cut costs, but maybe just because they have taken the stance that "you have a rifle, use it". In that respect, you shouldn't be relying on your pistol, that is why it's your sidearm. In regards to a player having the rocket launcher and the sniper rifle. Well the guy freaking deserves it then, if he was able to run around the map under fire and get the rocket launcher, then run to the other side of the map and get the sniper rifle, then why should he be penalized? He will be penalized enough when he runs out of ammo for his special weapons (not many other players will have rocket launcher ammo etc) or cannot lay down suppressing fire. Who is to say these are superweapons? Isn't it easier to hit a moving target with automatic fire than with a rocket? They are different weapons that are very effective in certain situations and may certainly give you an advantage, but that is what hey are in the game for. Would I be pissed off if my buddy manages to get two special weapons and starts blowing **** up everywhere and sniping? Hell no, because while he may not be able to lay suppresing fire in the traditional sense, once the enemy sees you have a sniper on your team, they'll keep their heads down more. This gives the rest of his team the ability to move up and try to flank with assault rifles and shotguns, which are more effective for that particular task. So then it is really the persons teammates who are being unsportsmanlike when someone manages to nab two special weapons, because if the guy can use if effectively he is going to be a huge asset. If he gets smoked, then he was an idiot, grab his rocket launcher and move on. He is most likely not going to rely on his pistol at all if he has two 'super' weapons at his disposal, perhaps he is willing to take heavy damage or even blow himself up for the kill so that his team doesn't get flanked by the guy who is attacking him. Basically, the pistol is going to be effective in the way it should be, you run out of ammo for one, or both, of your primary weapons in the open, and switch to your pistol to try to get the last minute kill before you go down. Don't think that because the pistol in Halo is so powerful that it is a considered a primary weapon that it will be the same in GoW. Look at Counter Strike, you can generally kill a fully armored opponent in five body shots, but you'd much rather kill him with two AK-47 shots, wouldn't you? I don't see the pistol being a table-turner in multiplayer, unless wielded by a highly skilled player, in which case he deserved the kill he managed with his sidearm.

[ban381]

hrmm, that was a little hard to read - but you guys are giving GoW 100% thumbs up without really knowing what the game is like. We really dont know how single player really is, and we know even less about multiplayer. I think the game will be good and its my most aniticipated game of the year (the only one really), but I can take a step back and say "hrmmm that doesnt sound good". Nothing is perfect, this game might be real real good, but it wont be perfect.


Isn't it easier to hit a moving target with automatic fire than with a rocket?

Yeah it is, your 100% correct. It also takes 1 rockets splash damage to kill someone - as oppose to say 50+ rounds in an automatic.

[Snake]

hrmm, that was a little hard to read - but you guys are giving GoW 100% thumbs up without really knowing what the game is like. We really dont know how single player really is, and we know even less about multiplayer. I think the game will be good and its my most aniticipated game of the year (the only one really), but I can take a step back and say "hrmmm that doesnt sound good". Nothing is perfect, this game might be real real good, but it wont be perfect.



Yeah it is, your 100% correct. It also takes 1 rockets splash damage to kill someone - as oppose to say 50+ rounds in an automatic.

That is if there is a wall behind him, or the rocket is shot at him at an angle from above so that it hits the ground near him as he is sprinting. Or maybe if you're very good, you'll be able to lead the guy and score a body shot, but that might be a little difficult. Besides, how do you know it takes one rocket's splash damage to kill a player? In one of the single player videos we have seen enemies have survived grenade blasts (not direct or very close hits) and returned fire. Do we even know how long the rocket launcher will take to reload yet? Are you thinking of it like the shoulder launched missile from Tribes, or like the handheld rocket launcher from the Unreal franchise? Is there a delay on the rockets that limits its use to mainly stationary targets? We don't have any idea how they have balanced the game, and I think it is a bit early to assume that just because something isn't an initial loadout weapon that it is a win-all device.

In my opinion, the sidearm is innocent until proven guilty. It hasn't been a problem in games before, I don't predict that it will be a game winning asset that ruins the balance in this game.

[ban381]

I dont know anything about nothing i havent seen.


Do we even know how long the rocket launcher will take to reload yet?

I dont know of any games that the rocket launcher doesnt just oblitirate another player.

We will know the answers to these questions months after the game is out. Thats usually when everyone starts to do the same thing over and over to win.

[Snake]

I dont know anything about nothing i havent seen.



I dont know of any games that the rocket launcher doesnt just oblitirate another player.

We will know the answers to these questions months after the game is out. Thats usually when everyone starts to do the same thing over and over to win.

Really, what about our little UT? The rocket launcher is good, but if you get too close i'm going to crush you with my Flakcannon. If you're really far away and you shoot a rocket at me, i'm going to take you down with my sniper rifle and then dodge out of the way of the slow moving rocket. If we're getting in a scrap, I can dodge your rockets as they come at me, and whittle away at you with my minigun.

If the rocket launcher obliterates you so often, maybe you are overestimating its power. And perhaps, like I said, the GoW version will be shoulder launched and be more of a "Shoot, reload, wait, wait, shoot, reload etc" deal, similar to the rocket launcher in Halo.

[Koric101]

I don't think the rocket will be a superweapon, I think there will be plenty to balance it out.

[ban381]

If the rocket launcher obliterates you so often, maybe you are overestimating its power.

I dont play UT, so i dont get obliterated. But that dodging sounds great, dunno how well that can be done in GoW since it isnt half the speed of UT.

[Snake]

I dont play UT, so i dont get obliterated. But that dodging sounds great, dunno how well that can be done in GoW since it isnt half the speed of UT.

What games have you played then that incorporate rocket launchers which you feel crush everything easily?

[Ma1agate]

I'm not trying to argue weapon strength or specific weapon balance here. Ban has hit it right on the head. We can only discuss certain issues so far without actual play experience.

I'm not trying to say I think that the pistol will be too strong itself, I'm arguing that the negative impact of the player's bad choices is going to be diminished because there will always be that weapon to fall back on. IMO, that seems a little too forgiving.

Think about this: Say you have a Lancer, a Shotgun, your sidearm, and grenades. You're hiding behind some cover, but you're pretty much a dead man if you try to make a dash across open ground to make it to a better position, so you hunker down and fight it out. And look, your opponent has a teammate or two trying to flank you.

You open up on your opponent, unleashing a hail of gunfire, hoping to take him out quickly so that you can deal with the flankers. Eventually, you run out of Lancer ammo, but your opponent is still alive and firing on you. You're too far away for the Shotgun to be particularly effective, so what do you do? Well, since you have your sidearm, you can continue to trade shots with him, and also try to dissuade the flankers because you can still do damage at range.

I don't think that should be an option. Being limited to only two firearms in this case would force the player to make a tactical decision, either throwing a grenade and rushing with the Shotgun, or risking the sprint across open ground to cover, etc. Having a sidearm to fall back on in this scenario would allow you to be as wasteful as you want with the Lancer ammo, because you still have the pistol to save you if you run out of ammo.

Also, in that same scenario, the fact that the one guy that's pinned down and low on ammo has a sidearm changes things for his attackers. Sure, they might not know he has a Shotgun, but they'll still know that no matter what he's going to have a sidearm, so rushing into close quarters is not a good idea, because he could still plug them at a distance during the sprint.

This is bad for two reasons:

1) It means that the guy who is pinned down still has a distance capability and if he keeps his attackers at a distance he'll have less of a chance to use his Shotgun.

2) It means that any attacker who has an opponent pinned has to wait longer, or at least be a lot more careful about moving in for the kill, despite them having the advantage.

If, regardless of your tactical decisions or weapon choices, the worst case you will find yourself in is one where you have an accurate, semi-automatic weapon that works well at close and medium range, I think that's a really forgiving combat situation. I just think that players should be forced to play smart. There should be hard consequences for bad tactical decisions.

[Ma1agate]

BTW, I refer to weapons like Rocket Launchers and Sniper Rifles as power weapons because they generally have the ability to kill a player much faster than most other weapons.

Usually one sniper round or one rocket can take a player out, whatever game you're playing. I wouldn't necessarily call a minigun a power weapon, because it still takes time to get enough rounds into your opponent to kill. Power weapons generally are instant-kill weapons.

And yes, a Shotgun can in a lot of cases grant instant kills, but only if you make yourself vulnerable by getting close. I would say instant kills at range pretty much constitute a power weapon.

But then again, this thread isn't dealing with weapon balance.

[D3LTA 38]

They should leave it but have a option for no side-arm because that will be what I chose about 100% of the time in multiplayer.

[Snake]

I'm not trying to argue weapon strength or specific weapon balance here. Ban has hit it right on the head. We can only discuss certain issues so far without actual play experience.

I'm not trying to say I think that the pistol will be too strong itself, I'm arguing that the negative impact of the player's bad choices is going to be diminished because there will always be that weapon to fall back on. IMO, that seems a little too forgiving.

Think about this: Say you have a Lancer, a Shotgun, your sidearm, and grenades. You're hiding behind some cover, but you're pretty much a dead man if you try to make a dash across open ground to make it to a better position, so you hunker down and fight it out. And look, your opponent has a teammate or two trying to flank you.

You open up on your opponent, unleashing a hail of gunfire, hoping to take him out quickly so that you can deal with the flankers. Eventually, you run out of Lancer ammo, but your opponent is still alive and firing on you. You're too far away for the Shotgun to be particularly effective, so what do you do? Well, since you have your sidearm, you can continue to trade shots with him, and also try to dissuade the flankers because you can still do damage at range.

I don't think that should be an option. Being limited to only two firearms in this case would force the player to make a tactical decision, either throwing a grenade and rushing with the Shotgun, or risking the sprint across open ground to cover, etc. Having a sidearm to fall back on in this scenario would allow you to be as wasteful as you want with the Lancer ammo, because you still have the pistol to save you if you run out of ammo.

Also, in that same scenario, the fact that the one guy that's pinned down and low on ammo has a sidearm changes things for his attackers. Sure, they might not know he has a Shotgun, but they'll still know that no matter what he's going to have a sidearm, so rushing into close quarters is not a good idea, because he could still plug them at a distance during the sprint.

This is bad for two reasons:

1) It means that the guy who is pinned down still has a distance capability and if he keeps his attackers at a distance he'll have less of a chance to use his Shotgun.

2) It means that any attacker who has an opponent pinned has to wait longer, or at least be a lot more careful about moving in for the kill, despite them having the advantage.

If, regardless of your tactical decisions or weapon choices, the worst case you will find yourself in is one where you have an accurate, semi-automatic weapon that works well at close and medium range, I think that's a really forgiving combat situation. I just think that players should be forced to play smart. There should be hard consequences for bad tactical decisions.

The players shouldn't be forced to do anything. There shouldn't be harsh consequences for having fun. This is a game, meant to be played easily by anyone. I don't see how going around punishing fun will improve the game. Saying that having a pistol available is really forgiving in a combat situation, just how much stopping power are you assuming the Snub pistol has? I was under the assumption that the pistol was going to take a subordinate role, not that of a big beefy magnum that blows heads off in a few shots, someone has already stated that he saw someone kill a guy with the pistol and it took ten shots to the head, which I assume is a full clip. if you can headshot someone ten times in a row while he shoots at you with a assault rifle or shotgun, then you freaking deserve the win.

[t bag]

It's all about being realistic game play. I don't have problem with a 3rd weapon, like a sidearm, because if this was realistic and that is what game developers are trying to design towards, I would carry a sidearm too. Now I don't know the specifics of the game but it should not go over the top with someone picking up say multiple weapons such as a rocket launcher, shotgun and snipe and have possession of all at their disposal. This would be deemed unrealistic.

Another aspect that is off the subject of this thread is how a shot is placed on an opponent. Say a head shot with the pistol should be deadly, if it is between the eyes. Not positive that this game will have any sheild capabilities or not but this would be a factor in how many shots it would take to take down your enemy. Since I am stuck on being realistic, the game should allow for good shooting, not just one shot in the leg or mid section with a snipe to take you out.

[ban381]

There shouldn't be harsh consequences for having fun.

Its not fun to play against someone whos overpowered with a long range power weapon, short range power weapon, and medium range weapon. Leaving you with a machine gun. Yeah, great fun...for one person.

It seems like every other hour someone is talking about how this works and how that works in GoW - i myself havent seen or heard anything other then whats been in the media and what i saw in videos - where is everyone getting this info?

[Snake]

Its not fun to play against someone whos overpowered with a long range power weapon, short range power weapon, and medium range weapon. Leaving you with a machine gun. Yeah, great fun...for one person.

It seems like every other hour someone is talking about how this works and how that works in GoW - i myself havent seen or heard anything other then whats been in the media and what i saw in videos - where is everyone getting this info?

Sure it is. It's really fun to push yourself and beat them. If they're much better than you AND are "whoring" the "super weapons and the pistol" then why don't you do the same if you're that concerned about it? Why don't you kill him before he gets the weapons? Camp the spot where the weapon spawns and punish him for his apparent greediness. Wait till he grabs it and then ambush him, then laugh because you beat him. Having two of these weapons doesn't make him invincible.

Besides, what would you suggest? Are you requesting the pistol be removed because you worry that someone will use it to, dare I say, shoot at you? Well, you just pull out your pistol and shoot right back. Do you suggest that they remove the sniper rifle and rocket launcher? Perhaps there will only be one special weapon per map, did you ever think of that? I think you are trying to assume the worst, that people taking two weapons that spawn will become an epidemic and servers will be full of nothing but "super weapon whores". I think Epic is smarter than that, they have failed to release a game yet that isn't precisely balanced and so polished you would get a sunburn standing in front of it on a sunny day.

And not to rant, but these forums were made for discussing the game. We are discussing facts we know, speculating on others, and offering up ideas for improvements. What else should we be talking about?

[Uday23]

^^^nice snake, i got ur back!

[ban381]

I dont think your ranting, your just expressing your GoW opinions in a GoW forum :). The problem is that you guys are putting GoW so high up in a pedestal that you can’t accept any negative concerns, speculations, or facts from other players. As soon as someone mentions something they saw that they 'think' might not work right, he’s considered bashing or someone tells him its fine, good, or will be fixed (without any prove I might add). I haven’t heard one person suggest that something in gears of war blatantly sucks - yet he's bashing or nitpicking. If we can discuss what we like and 'love' about GoW we should be able to discuss what we don’t like. There hasn’t been one post in this forum that I’v seen were someone has bashed the game.



“Sure it is. It's really fun to push yourself and beat them. If they're much better than you AND are "whoring" the "super weapons and the pistol" then why don't you do the same if you're that concerned about it? Why don't you kill him before he gets the weapons? Camp the spot where the weapon spawns and punish him for his apparent greediness. Wait till he grabs it and then ambush him, then laugh because you beat him. Having two of these weapons doesn't make him invincible.”


Now I consider myself a pretty average to good halo player, and that scenario you described IS satisfying. I can definitely agree with that. But After doing it 40 out of 50 times it becomes boring. To me fun is an experience, not whether I win or not. Winning constantly using the best weapons in the game is zzZZzzz to me.


“Besides, what would you suggest? Are you requesting the pistol be removed because you worry that someone will use it to, dare I say, shoot at you?”

I’ve had the same stand since the beginning of this discussion (Both are replying to the original poster):


“Thats why im not 100% agreeing with him. As of right now - none of us now how much impact that pistol will have on Multiplayer (except those who played the demo).”

And:


You bring up great points, and i can say i almost fully agree with you. The reason i say almost is because while all your points make perfect sense to me, that is because i play halo. One thing we have to keep in mind is that we dont have exact details on how multiplayer works. Power-weapons might spawn no matter how many characters have it.

There could be a good reason why sidearms are available in multiplayer - or maybe they wont be in there at launch. I myself, have a greater concern about how grenades will affect multiplayer - since this game seems a little slower paced then most FPS (but then again, it might not be a big deal because we really dont know if grenades have a delay before/after, etc..)

So are my comments considered bashing?

[RIGOR_MORTIS]

The original post has an analysis I think is very interesting because it brings up points most don't think of off the bat, but my opinion differs.

My first point is towards "realism". When you're in the army (or whatever) you most always are issued a side arm. I mean, it's a staple which makes sense to indeed BE a staple for all. The most important thing for this pistol is that it doesn't go Halo 1 pistol. ;) That pistol was just too good. Give it a definite weaker firepower and slower speeded firing, and it will be good.

When I play these type of multiplayer shooters, the last thing I think about is "cheap" is a pistol. (Besides Halo 1's) Most of us should remember the .50 caliber in Rainbow Six (Xbox for me) and how ridiculous it was to be hit by it.
It's that kind of unbalance that quickly becomes a tick off.

That's what I think, and I think I'm right! :)

[Rohawn]

Edit:Double posted somehow.

[Rohawn]

The original post has an analysis I think is very interesting because it brings up points most don't think of off the bat, but my opinion differs.

My first point is towards "realism". When you're in the army (or whatever) you most always are issued a side arm. I mean, it's a staple which makes sense to indeed BE a staple for all. The most important thing for this pistol is that it doesn't go Halo 1 pistol. ;) That pistol was just too good. Give it a definite weaker firepower and slower speeded firing, and it will be good.

When I play these type of multiplayer shooters, the last thing I think about is "cheap" is a pistol. (Besides Halo 1's) Most of us should remember the .50 caliber in Rainbow Six (Xbox for me) and how ridiculous it was to be hit by it.
It's that kind of unbalance that quickly becomes a tick off.

That's what I think, and I think I'm right! :)

Sorry to get off topic, but the pistol in the first halo balanced it, it was the only medium ranged weapon. Equal to the BR in halo 2, but way harder to kill someone with. I can explain myself in PM's or something but not here.

[Snake]

I dont think your ranting, your just expressing your GoW opinions in a GoW forum :). The problem is that you guys are putting GoW so high up in a pedestal that you can’t accept any negative concerns, speculations, or facts from other players. As soon as someone mentions something they saw that they 'think' might not work right, he’s considered bashing or someone tells him its fine, good, or will be fixed (without any prove I might add). I haven’t heard one person suggest that something in gears of war blatantly sucks - yet he's bashing or nitpicking. If we can discuss what we like and 'love' about GoW we should be able to discuss what we don’t like. There hasn’t been one post in this forum that I’v seen were someone has bashed the game.





Now I consider myself a pretty average to good halo player, and that scenario you described IS satisfying. I can definitely agree with that. But After doing it 40 out of 50 times it becomes boring. To me fun is an experience, not whether I win or not. Winning constantly using the best weapons in the game is zzZZzzz to me.



I’ve had the same stand since the beginning of this discussion (Both are replying to the original poster):



And:



So are my comments considered bashing?


So you have no actual opinion one way or the other on the subject, that's fine.

[Ma1agate]

Wow, not only are you guys totally going off topic (with the exception of Ban) but some of you guys seem like you're just itching to start a flame war. Let's get back on topic here.

We're not talking about weapon balance or weapon strength. The topic of this thread is the design decision to allow players to have a third firearm, regardless of what that firearm is.

My argument against it is that if you always have a third weapon, it makes the impact of your weapon selections less because you aren't forced to rely soley on the weapons you choose to pick up. It also changes the tactical options available to the player in a negative way, in my opinion.

It doesn't force the player to play smart.

Once the consequences of making a bad weapon selection or tactical decision hit home, the player can just switch to the sidearm to try to bail himself out. In my eyes, that's a cop-out. That's a way of avoiding the consequences. That's allowing you to play stupidly.

If a player picks a weapon and uses all the ammo for it, or doesn't leverage that weapon's abilities to his advantage by making sound tactical decisions, I think that deserves the punishment of vulnerability. The vulnerability would manifest in the form of having only one weapon and grenades (if the player has any left) to rely on in such an event. I don't think that's unfair at all.

I could pick two long range weapons and still be confident in the fact that I can defend myself at close range with my sidearm. I could also pick two short-range weapons and be confident that I still have a bit of reach with my sidearm. Do you see what I'm getting at? The third weapon means I don't have to fully rely on my own judgement.

I'm not asking that Epic make GoW some ridiculously hard game, I'm just saying that I think the player should be forced to face the consequences of his/her actions during play.

I hope those of you that haven't understood my argument up to this point understand it now. I think the best thing would be for there not to even be a a third weapon.

~Ma1

[Snake]

We are talking about weapon balance though, is this topic not about the inclusion or discarding of the pistol? Tell me, from your pedestal high up in the clouds do you happen to possess a copy of Gears? It seems from your posts that you have played the aforementioned game and have come to the conclusion that the pistol is severely damaging to the gameplay. I wonder, if the pistol had been a problem, wouldn't the many reporters who played the game have commented on such a hole in the gameplay?


I could pick two long range weapons and still be confident in the fact that I can defend myself at close range with my sidearm. I could also pick two short-range weapons and be confident that I still have a bit of reach with my sidearm.

Besides, could not other players do the same? I fail to see the problem with regards to balance. There is no limiting factor here, anyone may do this. You also fail to realize that the pistol takes approximately ten shots to the head to kill. That is alot of consecutive headshots. Once again, if you can headshot someone coming at you with a shotgun or assault rifle ten times in a row with your pistol then you deserve to win the fight, because you are an extremely skilled player.

[D3LTA 38]

I really dont mind the weapon if its implemented as long as they dont make it Halo strong which was cool but was considered a main weapon and not a sidearm.

[RIGOR_MORTIS]

I thought I was staying on topic, but throwing in some other points. As a third weapon, causing different strategy or "playing stupidly", I disagree is all I'm saying.

Not trying to start a flame war, but think about it: You pick up a rocket launcher and a sniper. (Like your example) These are both long range, but you can always fall back to a pistol for close range. Do I see this as it doesn't matter which weapon I grabbed? Not really. If someone is close with a machinegun/chainsaw, then even if I pulled out my pistol, I should get owned. If not, then the other person sucks and brings out the skill of the pistol user. Also, you said you'd feel "Confident" in your close defense with just a pistol. With a pistol, I couldn't disagree more because every other weapon should theoretically trump it.

[Zoso Fan]

If you run out of ammo, and your enemy has barely any life left, it would be nice to have the pistol to put in the final blows!

[Mel]

Pistols are usually more accurate so they're nice to have when you're teammate is close to an enemy and you don't want to accidently shoot him.

[lonelygoner]

it makes perfect sense,but i doubt they'll change that aspect of the game

[Snake]

I thought I was staying on topic, but throwing in some other points. As a third weapon, causing different strategy or "playing stupidly", I disagree is all I'm saying.

Not trying to start a flame war, but think about it: You pick up a rocket launcher and a sniper. (Like your example) These are both long range, but you can always fall back to a pistol for close range. Do I see this as it doesn't matter which weapon I grabbed? Not really. If someone is close with a machinegun/chainsaw, then even if I pulled out my pistol, I should get owned. If not, then the other person sucks and brings out the skill of the pistol user. Also, you said you'd feel "Confident" in your close defense with just a pistol. With a pistol, I couldn't disagree more because every other weapon should theoretically trump it.

I completely agree

[Zoso Fan]

I forgot to add... If both you and your enemy had no ammo (besides pistols) and low health, that would make a very sispensful moment in gameplay with the pistol!

By the way, stop even bringing up flamewars! If someone goes off topic either state that nicely or re-say what your original question was, you dont have to take things personally! :)

[Ma1agate]

Snake, why do you insist on belittling everyone else that has even a slightly different point of view?

Nowhere did I say that I had played the game, and you can't in any way say that I'm looking down on other people or putting anything on a pedestal, I'm simply trying to discuss game design. Grow up.

You've still got my argument wrong. Go read my last post again. This is not an argument about weapon balance. This is an argument about whether or not there should be a third weapon regardless of what that weapon is.

It isn't about the pistol itself at all.

Epic could decide to give all players a shotgun as their backup weapon and my argument would still be exactly the same.

As far as we know right now, Gears will give you two weapons that you start off with and can choose to drop for other weapons you find, right? It also gives you a backup weapon.

My argument is that the fact that you have that third weapon means that you won't have to rely on the decisions you made in terms of which weapons you picked up. You'll always have that backup weapon to bail you out.

If Epic is going to put little risk-vs.-reward situations in Gears like the reload ability and basically make the player face the consequences of making a small decision like that, why would they pad a decision like weapon selection with a backup weapon? It just doesn't jive for me.

~Ma1

[Mel]

You can't have an argument against a pistol if you've never played the game before. For all we know the pistol could be such an awful weapon that you wouldn't want to ever rely on it if you could avoid it.

[Snake]

You've still got my argument wrong. Go read my last post again. This is not an argument about weapon balance. This is an argument about whether or not there should be a third weapon regardless of what that weapon is.

Sorry, that is weapon balancing, I'm not sure you are familiar with the term. Please stop bro, I don't want to get into an argument.

[ban381]

So you have no actual opinion one way or the other on the subject, that's fine.
After reading 6 pages of comments and writing over 5 paragraphs, you couldn’t figure out if i had an opinion on the subject? So did you read anything iv posted, or where you arguing with yourself for the last 4 pages?

I wasn’t gonna bring this up before, but all your points aren’t event valid...

You compare GoW to UT. Dodging rockets, and spraying this and the other. Have you noticed this is NOT UT. There’s more focus on cover, teamwork, and slower game play. You don’t even have a jump button.

And the fact that your comments have mostly nothing to do with my actual comments and opinions. Don’t even bother replying to my post or calling me a basher without reading any of my previous post. It makes you look stupid.

(Waits for Zoso to come in) ::that guy is everywhere :p

[Uday23]

no complaining everyone, GoW is not even out yet, and i doubt that anything we say will change EPIC's mind out the pistol, its not a big deal, u guys are just making it a big deal, its just a game, GOW WILL BE GREAT!

[Koric101]

I thought I was staying on topic, but throwing in some other points. As a third weapon, causing different strategy or "playing stupidly", I disagree is all I'm saying.

Not trying to start a flame war, but think about it: You pick up a rocket launcher and a sniper. (Like your example) These are both long range, but you can always fall back to a pistol for close range. Do I see this as it doesn't matter which weapon I grabbed? Not really. If someone is close with a machinegun/chainsaw, then even if I pulled out my pistol, I should get owned. If not, then the other person sucks and brings out the skill of the pistol user. Also, you said you'd feel "Confident" in your close defense with just a pistol. With a pistol, I couldn't disagree more because every other weapon should theoretically trump it.

I completely agree with you and snake. I highly doubt that the pistol will be a devastating weapon to the point where if you use it, you are probably not going to get the kill, but it's better than sitting there with nothing, just waiting to die. Its an option that probably won't have any effect rather than the player being able to do something rather than sit there sayin, "wtf do I do now?"

[D3LTA 38]

I dont mind the pistol as long as this game is kick ass.

[Koric101]

I dont mind the pistol as long as this game is kick ass.

Lol I hear ya :cool:

[Snake]

There seem to be only two people in the entire world that are concerned that the pistol will convey some sort of superhuman advantage. I don't really care how many hours of Halo you have played, this is not Halo. If you want to play Halo, by all means go play Halo. It has the weapons system you desire. This is Gears of War. It has three weapons, two main weapons and a sidearm. By all accounts, there have been no problems with the system. All of the reporters who played the game enjoyed it. If you think that you have superior views on balance issues than Epic then perhaps you should send them an application and enlighten them, they would be glad to have your help. If you are unhappy with the current system because you are afraid other players will take better advantage of the pistol, then maybe Gears of War isn't for you.

[Koric101]

There seem to be only two people in the entire world that are concerned that the pistol will convey some sort of superhuman advantage. I don't really care how many hours of Halo you have played, this is not Halo. If you want to play Halo, by all means go play Halo. It has the weapons system you desire. This is Gears of War. It has three weapons, two main weapons and a sidearm. By all accounts, there have been no problems with the system. All of the reporters who played the game enjoyed it. If you think that you have superior views on balance issues than Epic then perhaps you should send them an application and enlighten them, they would be glad to have your help. If you are unhappy with the current system because you are afraid other players will take better advantage of the pistol, then maybe Gears of War isn't for you.

nicely put

[Ma1agate]

There seem to be only two people in the entire world that are concerned that the pistol will convey some sort of superhuman advantage. I don't really care how many hours of Halo you have played, this is not Halo. If you want to play Halo, by all means go play Halo. It has the weapons system you desire. This is Gears of War. It has three weapons, two main weapons and a sidearm. By all accounts, there have been no problems with the system. All of the reporters who played the game enjoyed it. If you think that you have superior views on balance issues than Epic then perhaps you should send them an application and enlighten them, they would be glad to have your help. If you are unhappy with the current system because you are afraid other players will take better advantage of the pistol, then maybe Gears of War isn't for you.

For starters, I don't recall ever saying that I think Gears should play in any way like Halo. Gears should play like Epic intends it to play.

Once again, we're not talking about the pistol. You're the one that keeps bringing it up. Weapon balance deals with specific weapons. I'm talking about the sheer fact that you have more than two guns. Weapon balance surely ties in at some point, but this is an argument that can be made without referencing any specific weapons at all.

If you always have a third weapon, you won't be forced to use the weapons you picked up in all circumstances. That means that the player doesn't have to rely on smart decisions regarding weapon choice because there will always be a weapon capability at his/her disposal that can be taken for granted.

I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand.

I wonder if you're even absorbing the arguments that are being made, or are you just here to shoot down anything that you perceive as being remotely analytical about what we've seen so far of the game? You've proudly admitted in another thread to being a fanboy, so the chances of you expressing an objective view on anything related to this game are close to nil.

Your posts amount to not much more than putting Epic on a pedestal and blindly agreeing that whatever you see it the way it should be, like none of the people here might have even the slightest insight that Epic would benefit from hearing.

Given your approach, do you think Epic is likely to actually listen to anything that comes from this forum? If you were Epic, would you listen more to the people that agree with every last thing you put out, or would you listen to and evaluate the differing opinions on your work, given they're coming from your potential customers? You're drastically decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio with your blind arguments and the derision in your posts.

You're making the forums less and less worth Epic taking seriously with your attitude.

Nowhere am I saying my way is the best, that my way is right, or anything of that nature. Your perception of my argument is way off base, and, might I add, you're turning what started out as an objective analysis of the weapon system into a flame war.

I'm not at all worried that someone might take better advantage of the sidearm or that someone out there will somehow gain an advantage over me during gameplay, I'd just like to feel like the choices I make during gameplay matter to the outcome.

If players over time come to realize that the weapon choices they make only matter so much because they always at minimum have some sort of ranged capability, how much does that hurt replay value, or does it at all? I believe it does, and I believe if Epic wants to make a great game they should be asking themselves such questions.

Sure, many people will play the campaign ad nauseum, but I guarantee a vast majority will buy Gears of War with the expectation that the multiplayer will be balanced and honed enough to last quite a while. That's certainly what I'm looking for. I'm merely trying to pose questions that I think would help in seeing that end.

I don't see why you have such a problem with people even voicing concerns like these. What could it possibly hurt that someone wants to pose a question that Epic would do well to take into consideration? Ultimately all the choices fall on Epic to make, and since you have such blind, zealous faith in Epic, why can't you just trust in them instead of lashing out at anyone that doesn't just swallow whole what's put in front of them?

~Ma1

[Brumak]

Agrees entirely

[D3LTA 38]

Hate to try and counter what you said becuase it is a good point but Epic made these forums for Gearhead to all gather up talk about Gears of War not to get ideas and etc. They may occasionally find a few good ideas but other than that its their ball game. Take Bungie.net forums for example, they are taking clan match yet and more than Half the xbox live community opposes it but that dosent stop them. All I have to say is that Epic will do what is best for the game pistol or not. You still make a pretty good stand though.

[Koric101]

I think what you said Ma1agate is a valid point, however I don't agree. I feel that the pistol is going to be weak enough to the point where if someone has another weapon, any other weapon will win in most cases. It isn't a kind of weapon that you fall back on. Sure you can use it if your other weapons fail or if you run out of ammo, but that's just a third weapon that's there, it's not going to change the outcome if you do decide to use it.

Take this situation into consideration. Let's say games like Halo and all the other shooters out there did things differently to start and made it so grenades took up one weapon spot. If gears came around now and decided to have grenades standard we might be having the same conversation about that, however it's always been that you have grenades standard.

I feel that the pistol, after just a short time will become standard in the mind of the player, just as grenades are now.

[EJRaven]

I completely agree with Ma1agate.

I think Epic has a revolutionary cinematographic camara angle on their hands, and I think more FPS games will follow suit.

[Zoso Fan]

EVERYONE STOP FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER! You all can argue without being B*tches!

[ban381]

lol zoso, your cool and all - but that made no sense :)

[Koric101]

lol zoso, your cool and all - but that made no sense :)

Ya, what's up with that zoso? Just posting an opinion.

[Snake]

don't think that the pistol sidearm(or any third firearm) should be included in Multiplayer. Here's why:

Gears of War's gameplay, in regard to weaponry, is being designed around the pick-2-weapons system that Halo popularized. That system is based on the idea that the player needs to be smart about which weapons to carry

You have clearly played Halo, and seem to believe that Gears of War is trying to imitate their weapon system. It is not.


Once again, we're not talking about the pistol

Then why is your thread titled "Argument against 3rd weapon (pistol sidearm) in Multiplayer"?


If you always have a third weapon, you won't be forced to use the weapons you picked up in all circumstances.

Your point of view is skewed in my opinion. Why would someone take two other weapons into their inventory with the intent to use their pistol instead of those two weapons? If someone is forced to use their pistol when they are on the defensive, the odds are against them and they will most likely be killed by someone with a better weapon than the pistol. Besides, that's what they put the pistol in the game for, so you can use it sometimes. They didn't put the pistol in the game with the intention that players would never have to use it.


I don't see why that's so hard for you to understand.

I understand what you are trying to say, but in my personal opinion, I think you are incorrect. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


Nowhere am I saying my way is the best, that my way is right, or anything of that nature.

Then why bother to debate it, if not even you believe strongly enough in your opinion to show us that you are right? I'm not trying to flame you, so please calm down. I am disagreeing with you, and if you can't understand that someone can disagree on your opinion and try to prove you wrong, then that's too bad man.

Back to the point of the thread, your argument fails to stand up. The pistol is not a weapon that people would choose to fall back to on purpose, rather a weapon that exists once you have expended all of your ammunition for your other weapons. It's a last ditch sidearm. Like I said before, apparently it takes ten headshots to kill someone with the pistol, that is hardly the stopping power one would trade with another weapon under ideal circumstances. The sniper rifle can be fired from close range without zooming in so that using the sniper rifle close range would probably prove a better choice than your pistol. Basically the circumstances you base your arguments are either highly unlikely,or false. You have suggested removing the pistol for these reasons, and we have shown you that the pistol is not a problem factor in multiplayer balancing.

[Zoso Fan]

Kinda kiddin.... I guess i didnt make my sarcasm strong enough... :)

[ban381]

zoso! another great tactic video!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7486583767426908809

[Koric101]

Kinda kiddin.... I guess i didnt make my sarcasm strong enough... :)

cool, from all ur other posts, I didn't think that was you, but glad to have it cleared up. :)

[Ma1agate]

Man, Snake, you still aren't getting it.

The reason I reference the pistol in the topic is because that is currently the sidearm. If they made the shotgun the backup weapon, I'd be making the same case about that.

And, BTW, I can accept other people's points of view just fine. It's when you make my posts out to be skewed and subjective and act like I use some kind of bogus rationale that I have a problem, particularly when I go to such pains to be objective about it.

You say "we've proved", that my arguments are "flawed or just false" Who is we? I don't see anyone else making objective arguments to the contrary. I also don't see how my argument can be proved "false". It's not a question of right or wrong, true or false.

I'm posing a question as objectively as I can, and then I'm stating my opinion after that in the interest of seeing other people's arguments for or against it. With the exception of the post about grenades being a standard feature and not being considered a weapon that takes up a slot in the player's inventory, I've seen very little convincing argument in favor of a third weapon. And that argument simply spoke of a change to the standard, it didn't really put forth a reason why a third backup weapon enhances gameplay.

I'm kind of amused that you act like I'm the one that's off topic. I started the thread. It's never been about the pistol specifically, it's never been about weapon balance. I've kept to the point, so don't act like I'm diverting the conversation.

On top of the arguments against it that I've already stated, I think a sidearm is unnecessary. If you have two weapons and grenades, I think that should be enough to take out any single opponent you face. If you run out of ammo completely for both weapons and you don't have any grenades, then IMO you probably deserve to die for putting yourself in that situation. A backup weapon is only going to prolong the fight against one particular opponent and will slow the flow of the game.

I want to have an encounter with an enemy and either win or lose, meaning one of us dies or one of us runs away, and then I want to be on to my next '30 seconds of fun'. If either of us has another weapon in reserve that we can pull out and start bucking shots with, that's only going to prolong the fight with each individual opponent. I think a lot of players are going to find it tedious to have to wear down the opponent in terms of either health or ammo, only to have him pull out a backup weapon with an untouched supply of ammo. A third weapon, in my mind, is only going to increase that whack-a-mole feeling that Epic is trying to dispense with.

I think that if a longer individual encounter is what Epic is in fact going for, then issues of weapon balance as well as player health and armor values are what should be looked at. A deliberately inferior last-ditch weapon isn't going to help much.

Also, if the sidearm, whatever it is, is a legitimately weaker weapon than the others the player can pick up, why include it at all? If you're basically guaranteed to get killed using it, why even pretend like it's something that will save you? They could do better by simply improving the utility of the weapon and including it as a weapon to be picked up instead of keeping it as a default weapon that will more often than not get you killed.

Again, I can fully understand keeping it in campaign, but for multiplayer? I think it will just draw things out from what we've seen. Epic could very well have some things up their sleeve that factor in here and make all our arguments moot, so we probably can't beat this horse much more without some more details from Epic. Hell, the sidearm could very well be exchangeable for other sidearms. Have we heard for sure that that isn't the case? I still think my rationale would hold water in that case, but it certainly bears some thought.

~Ma1

[Mel]

It's a semi realistic game, soldiers carry side arms in real life.

[JordanD]

This thead delivers!!!

I couldnt agree with you more.

[Snake]

Mal, don't quit your day job and opt to become a game designer.

[seph]

2) The sidearm also allows for more "one man army" type play, because if I still have a chance against the guy that snuck up on me even though I made a stupid decision and hogged all the power weapons, I need to rely less on my teammates for cover because I still have a sidearm to defend myself with.

Sure, I will still be at a disadvantage because my attacker will probably have an assault rifle or a shotgun against my pistol(don't forget the grenades!). But the fact that I still have a fighting chance even though someone got the drop on me means that I can run off on my own and ditch my team if I feel like it; and the worst thing that will happen is that I only have a pistol and grenades to fall back on.

What are you saying here? From what I understand, you are saying that if an enemy sneaks up on you while you are sniping, you shouldn't stand any chance? Why is that? It is only realistic that you could take him out with your sidearm, even when the odds are low. It's just dependant on how the guy who sneaks up on you manage to hit you more then you hit him, which likely is going to happen if he use an assault rifle in such a close range. But I can't understand why you don't wan't to stand a chance against him with your sidearm when it's only realistic that you would.

And don't forget that it takes 1-2 seconds to actually holster your sniper and put up your sidearm. And the sidearm have less bullets and takes less damage than any other weapon in the game.

[Snake]

What are you saying here? From what I understand, you are saying that if an enemy sneaks up on you while you are sniping, you shouldn't stand any chance? Why is that? It is only realistic that you could take him out with your sidearm, even when the odds are low. It's just dependant on how the guy who sneaks up on you manage to hit you more then you hit him, which likely is going to happen if he use an assault rifle in such a close range. But I can't understand why you don't wan't to stand a chance against him with your sidearm when it's only realistic that you would.

And don't forget that it takes 1-2 seconds to actually holster your sniper and put up your sidearm. And the sidearm have less bullets and takes less damage than any other weapon in the game.

Exactly, thanks Seph :)

[Gearcommando]

i like carrying a sidearm they've gotten me out of tight spots and got me good headshots but i hope they have alot of weapon options

[Spartan-034]

Everything you all siad is true but you need the pistol so when you do run out of lancer ammo and the shotgun your carrying is inaffective you got your trusty sidearm to save your a** Besides as long as its not like the pistol in halo 1 it will be just fine not to strong not to weak. And no zoom!

And the deal wiht the rocket they could just have it so you cant carry the pistol when you have the rocket or maybe make weopons like the the sniper and rocket take up to spaces a regular one adn the one for the sidearm.

[Xenomorph]

I think the pistol is totally unnecessary for this reason: YOU WILL NEVER USE IT!!!!! In single player, there's bound to be ammo around, and you can pick up Locust weapons if you want. And in multiplayer, you'll die before you can use it!
What are the chances that you'll have the time to deplete both of your primary weapons' ammo and not die, or if you manage that, chances to not exchange weapons with dead opponent!? I think the pistol will never be used for battles other than experimental battles!!! Booyah, I've... Made another... excellent poi-oint!!! BOOYAAAAAAHHHhhhhhhh....:D


...But I still think the pistol should be there, to make things more realistic/cool/awesome YEAH!!!:D

[UnrealWars]

For some reason i have avoided this thread, but its time to put in my couple of cents...

The pistol has always been a mainstay in mostly every shooter that has come out in reason memory. Taking out the pistol is like taking something away from the game. In single player you may assume that your going to have enough ammo in the game, but lets say that you happen to run out of ammo. You have a sidearm that is accurate and is still great for close quater combat. A few well placed pistol headshots can end any enemy pretty quick. Who's to say that the pistol is going to be a weak a** .22 cal pee shooter. I play alot of COD2 on my computer and one good shot from a .45 colt ends you. As for multiplayer, a pistol is a necesity(sp?). If your a sniper you want to be able to stand a chance against an enemy that runs up on you. Personally i've gotten a custom to pistols in games that if you have a shotty and i have my pisto and we are at a resonable range, you better get off at least a shot because there is going to be a load of bullets in your head. All im trying to say is that why take something out that has been in shooters since practically day one.

We'll im done and going to go eat some pizza:D

[the medicine man]

so true i play COD2 on 360 and the luger kickes a**. ok but you cant kill an enemy, with a head shot thats wearin a metal head plate or something. but ya dont take teh pistol out cause it'll be fun runnin around killin the locust hord with a little dinky pistol or the .50 cal desert eagle (yes they make those)

[chron1caust]

If you have a fast trigger finger it shoots really fast. And maybe th bullets take away a little bit more health than the lancer, for headshots.

[Mike]

I understand where you're coming from, but a sidearm won't give you hardly any more sence of security. Like in GRAW, you have a pistol, but it doesn't affect any of our tactical decisons as a group.

A sidearm is only used as a last resort, it will not significantly alter the gameplay.

[Flaming Hornets]

If you have a sidearm because you run out of ammo for your other guns, what do you do if your pistol runs out? Do you have some sort of secondary sidearm?

The sidearm/ 3rd weapon makes the idea of picking up weapons seem rather pointless, as you do not need to think about which weapon you are good with; as you can just pick up anything.

And at the beginning of this topic people were talking about if you had a rocket launcher, and a sniper you should just stand and die. Dont be stupid! If you have a rocket launcher, just aim at the ground and take both yourself and the enemy out. That way they can't ravage your team with the sniper.

[seph]

If you have a sidearm because you run out of ammo for your other guns, what do you do if your pistol runs out? Do you have some sort of secondary sidearm?

You don't survive that long unless you use all your clips on an empty wall.