The SoS, a technical suggestion how to make it a "fun" weapon! (serious comments)

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Serious comments only pls!

Hello everyone,

I have played all Gears of War games so far. Now I am playing Gears of War 3 and I have also read and commented on the forums for a while. The SoS is one of the main subjects on the forums so here is my view on the situation.

My verdict:

In my opinion the only gametype in which the SoS is overpowered/used/frustrating is Wingman. This is because the surprise ratio is 3 times (3 opposing teams) higher when compared to Cog VS Locust gametypes. Since the SoS is a "Hit and Run" weapon (1 shot) it is best suited to kill small groups of enemies at the time. (not a single group of 5 enemies)

Part from that, I think it is a boring weapon to use since it's not very satisfactory killing with it. This is because the weapon is extremely predictable. Now the spread appears to be random (when fired on a wall), but in fact it's a 2 meters long and 1.5 meters in width "area of one shot gib". It's a yes or no weapon. But it's the maybe weapons which are most fun..


My solution:

Remove the maximum range and make the bulletspread random just like the Gnasher from Gears of War 1. Alter the damage output per bullet, the amount of bullets and the bulletspread. There are countless of variations possible while adjusting the sliders, it is a matter of preference on Epic's side. Because Epic prefers to have a shotgun to counter the Gnasher on very short range, I think the best idea would be to increase it's range but decreasing it's reliability by altering the spread. Even if Epic's intention concerning the SoS is not to counter the Gnasher, but to implent a weapon for players who "suck" with the Gnasher then perhaps make it a more fun weapon for the Gnasher user also?

My preference:

Perhaps it's an idea giving the SoS the same amount of bullets (or slightly less) in it's magazine as the Gnasher has. The randomisation of the bullets makes it a less skillful weapon to use and less predictable. But that doesn't mean it will be less fun to use! Keep in mind that the Gnasher from Gears of War 1 had a random bulletspread too! Unpredictability is pure excitement, it can help in unexpected situations and it can disappoint in situations the normal Gnasher would gib for sure. I am talking about the implentation of an inconsistent Gnasher with a potentialy longer gib range. In other words: implenting the Retro Gnasher! (Gnasher from Gears of War 1, maybe adjusted)

Unexpected situations are a huge wow factor. It triggers more emotion negative and positive!

Bulletspread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdO0l-Vo0kU

Ps arren't shotguns used to have a random spread and a practically unlimited range? All shooters have a random bulletspread in shotguns, only a few limit it's range. Since Gears of War is a haven for shotguns, the satisfaction level on using shotguns should be maximised.

Serious comments only pls!

[CFI DontStabYou]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target.

[CFI DontStabYou]

I'm kidding of course lol

[Insmoke]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target. Best fix ever!

[Harro]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target.

Victory lies within the quoted text above.

Seriously though, it should have some kind of draw back. Ammo / Reload isn't enough of a penalty for missing when you annihilate everything in front of you if you don't miss. It should hurt you, slow you, or if you don't land the Active, not be immediately useable.

[Madman Redux]

Personally, I think unpredictability in a game is bad in any form. I think designers should put as much control in the players' hands as possible. So I don't like your solution of making the effective spread random, if I am reading your idea correctly.

If it were me under the hood, I'd narrow the sawed-off's cone and give it a little bit farther of a range (without touching its gib range). Just make it taper off a bit slower after gib range.

It's not a popular opinion, but I'd remove the gnasher's one-shot gib capability completely. Perhaps make it possible on active reload. But if extremely close range, one-shot gib is the appeal of the sawed-off, I say jump in with both feet and give that capability solely to the sawed-off. Make the gnasher more of a short- to mid-range weapon, where it already is a powerhouse.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Victory lies within the quoted text above.

Seriously though, it should have some kind of draw back. Ammo / Reload isn't enough of a penalty for missing when you annihilate everything in front of you if you don't miss. It should hurt you, slow you, or if you don't land the Active, not be immediately useable.
In that case you are making to process of using the weapon even more burdening.. The key to a succesful game/weapon is giving the player maximum (fluent) control over what he is doing, not making the process of using the weapon tiresome. In this case of the SoS it better be fluent in using it, like the Gnasher, but altering the outcome of the weapon when used.

If you would like to burden it anyway.. Then I think the best way of doing that is implenting a delay in using the SoS during blindfire. Just like the Gnasher from Gears of War 2 has/had before TU6. If you didn't press aim, most of the times the gnasher would require about 0,7 seconds to be revved up after pressing fire.

[suppafinga]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target.
Hi, I'm Suppa and I approve this message. :cool:

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Personally, I think unpredictability in a game is bad in any form. I think designers should put as much control in the players' hands as possible. So I don't like your solution of making the effective spread random, if I am reading your idea correctly.

If it were me under the hood, I'd narrow the sawed-off's cone and give it a little bit farther of a range (without touching its gib range). Just make it taper off a bit slower after gib range.

It's not a popular opinion, but I'd remove the gnasher's one-shot gib capability completely. Perhaps make it possible on active reload. But if extremely close range, one-shot gib is the appeal of the sawed-off, I say jump in with both feet and give that capability solely to the sawed-off. Make the gnasher more of a short- to mid-range weapon, where it already is a powerhouse.

Yes, I totally agree on the idea of full controllability (see former post) in terms of using the weapon. This doesn't mean however the outcome (damage per bullet, amount of bullets and spread) of the weapon should be a 100% solid too! Not to mention I didn't say I would propose a weapon which is 30% reliable. The tweaking process should make it a 90% reliable weapon, in case of the Gnasher of Gears of War 1. Which is not limiting the controllabilty of the weapon, but making the gameplay slightly unpredictable (not too much) which increases the wow factor.

Just think about it in philosophic terms: Would anything be interesting if you knew exactly a 100% what it was or what the outcome would be?

The 10% unreliable factor keeps the weapon interesting over time. A 50% unreliability would be wrong, because you would take too much control out of the weapon.

This is my opinion.

[qwertyoip]

Current SOS sound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_YdH16yltk

What it should be more like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi4eNkIFnRE (0:27)

When I shoot the double barrel, I want a cannon, not a cricket gun. :C

[Madman Redux]

Yes, I totally agree on the idea of full controllability (see former post) in terms of using the weapon. This doesn't mean however the outcome (damage per bullet, amount of bullets and spread) of the weapon should be a 100% solid too! Not to mention I didn't say I would propose a weapon which is 30% reliable. The tweaking process should make it a 90% reliable weapon, in case of the Gnasher of Gears of War 1. Which is not limiting the controllabilty of the weapon, but making the gameplay slightly unpredictable (not too much) which increases the wow factor.

Just think about it in philosophic terms: Would anything be interesting if you knew exactly a 100% what it was or what the outcome would be?

The 10% unreliable factor keeps the weapon interesting over time. A 50% unreliability would be wrong, because you would take too much control out of the weapon.

This is my opinion.
Well, you're missing something really important: as a human being, you're extremely unreliable and inconsistent. So you're going to surprise (and disappoint) yourself constantly.

The difference is, with your suggestion, you'll often have the game to blame (or credit) for your loss (or win), which I don't think is ever fulfilling or fun.

If I'm going to kick someone's butt, I want to know that it's because I did everything right, and if I'm going to lose, I don't want it to be in spite of the fact that I did everything right and still lost. There's nothing more frustrating in multiplayer gaming than feeling powerless because of a random factor that caused you to lose an engagement.

I do think minor implementations of randomness are OK. For example, the bloom and spread implemented into the rifles helps rein in their effective range, and I think that's OK. On a one-shot weapon, like the sawed-off, which is used in such high stakes situations (miss and you're dead), I think sending the bullets anywhere but exactly where you're aiming would be a bad call.

[InFlamesWeTrust]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target.
Best idea ever!

[Raindeezy]

best sawed off suggestion so far. make it only work at melee range and zero effectiveness from there, you know like the game says when you select it.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Well, you're missing something really important: as a human being, you're extremely unreliable and inconsistent. So you're going to surprise (and disappoint) yourself constantly.

The difference is, with your suggestion, you'll often have the game to blame (or credit) for your loss (or win), which I don't think is ever fulfilling or fun.

If I'm going to kick someone's butt, I want to know that it's because I did everything right, and if I'm going to lose, I don't want it to be in spite of the fact that I did everything right and still lost. There's nothing more frustrating in multiplayer gaming than feeling powerless because of a random factor that caused you to lose an engagement.

I do think minor implementations of randomness are OK. For example, the bloom and spread implemented into the rifles helps rein in their effective range, and I think that's OK. On a one-shot weapon, like the sawed-off, which is used in such high stakes situations (miss and you're dead), I think sending the bullets anywhere but exactly where you're aiming would be a bad call.

Ok, but I am not sure I get/agree with this:

"as a human being, you're extremely unreliable and inconsistent. So you're going to surprise (and disappoint) yourself constantly."

If there is something which I like personally, then it is winning without actually earning it from time to time. (1 out of 10) If everything is rigid, then there would be no surprises right? I think surprises negative/positive is the ultimate characteristic which could make something interesting. Ofcourse it shouldn't be a complete surprise but that little edge is neccesary I think to stay addicted to a certain subject. If you knew it already why bother?

But then again, I am talking about making it slightly less consistent and not making it totally inconsistent.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Current SOS sound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_YdH16yltk

What it should be more like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi4eNkIFnRE (0:27)

When I shoot the double barrel, I want a cannon, not a cricket gun. :C

Details like sound and graphics are very important. Though it's off topic, since it has nothing to do with balancing, I like your input.

I personally would like the flashbang of blood during a gib to disappear completely. Also I would prefer a more logical gib animation. Shooting legs -> legs gone and not the rest of the body. Now the whole body goes through a blender after each gib.

[dzs Awez0me]

My solution is whenever the SoS user fires the gun it has a 99% chance of killing himself and not the target.

Replace the SOS with the Cleaver !

[Richtophen]

whenever someone holding a sawed off gets killed, there should be audio of a baby crying that plays.

[Madman Redux]

Ok, but I am not sure I get/agree with this:

"as a human being, you're extremely unreliable and inconsistent. So you're going to surprise (and disappoint) yourself constantly."

If there is something which I like personally, then it is winning without actually earning it from time to time. (1 out of 10) If everything is rigid, then there would be no surprises right? I think surprises negative/positive is the ultimate characteristic which could make something interesting. Ofcourse it shouldn't be a complete surprise but that little edge is neccesary I think to stay addicted to a certain subject. If you knew it already why bother?

But then again, I am talking about making it slightly less consistent and not making it totally inconsistent.
In anything competitive with a deep level of strategy, outcomes aren't predictable. You can guess or put odds on a team winning (and people naturally do), but you'll never be always right.

So people will never cease to be surprised, and people will never cease to surprise other people.

In a game where you play against other human beings, you will be handed victory. Ever hear the phrase, "the offense didn't show up" or something of the like? Those kinds of phrases are generally applied to sports, but I think it's a comparable conversation. The point is, when performance relies totally on human beings, outcomes will never be consistent or predictable, because there's nothing consistent or predictable about the way humans perform. We have off days and on days, good games and bad games.

I can't count the number of Gears games where I've gotten frustrated and charged the enemy team (stupidly) with my sawed-off and basically handed them kills. Along with that, I was handing them the game. They didn't earn it. I gave it to them.

I don't need a computational outcomes to take that responsibility from me because I'll do it on my own. I'll say it again. There's nothing more frustrating in pvp gaming than losing because of something you had no control over. While it may be nice to benefit from these things from time to time, I maintain that they are less fulfilling to players the same that playing lesser skilled players over and over and trouncing on them over and over loses its appeal quickly.

While I don't think a completely sterile design is the way to go, I think anything that affects the player's ability to accurately affect the game is going to lead to undesirable results and frustration because it's a physical disability.

And granted, a lot of game devs tend to take the "law of averages" approach with this kind of thing that any randomness that negatively affects one player will affect them all relatively, and that's how they justify that it's OK. I'd argue most gamers don't see it that way. They only see that the game is out to get them because they aren't responsible for making a particular mistake. Statistically, it may be relative, but people don't think that way. And it negatively affects their experience.

For any player who plays the game for its intended purpose, which in this case is to score the most kills or points and win the match (not limited to super competitive players), I think it's best to input any randomness with a ton of care and discretion to ensure it does not affect the individual's ability to perform. I honestly see no benefit to doing so, and no, I'm not a super competitive player, just someone who likes for my computers to do what I tell them to do when I tell them to do it, and I don't think I'm much different from most people.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

In anything competitive with a deep level of strategy, outcomes aren't predictable. You can guess or put odds on a team winning (and people naturally do), but you'll never be always right.

So people will never cease to be surprised, and people will never cease to surprise other people.

In a game where you play against other human beings, you will be handed victory. Ever hear the phrase, "the offense didn't show up" or something of the like? Those kinds of phrases are generally applied to sports, but I think it's a comparable conversation. The point is, when performance relies totally on human beings, outcomes will never be consistent or predictable, because there's nothing consistent or predictable about the way humans perform. We have off days and on days, good games and bad games.

I can't count the number of Gears games where I've gotten frustrated and charged the enemy team (stupidly) with my sawed-off and basically handed them kills. Along with that, I was handing them the game. They didn't earn it. I gave it to them.

I don't need a computational outcomes to take that responsibility from me because I'll do it on my own. I'll say it again. There's nothing more frustrating in pvp gaming than losing because of something you had no control over. While it may be nice to benefit from these things from time to time, I maintain that they are less fulfilling to players the same that playing lesser skilled players over and over and trouncing on them over and over loses its appeal quickly.

While I don't think a completely sterile design is the way to go, I think anything that affects the player's ability to accurately affect the game is going to lead to undesirable results and frustration because it's a physical disability.

And granted, a lot of game devs tend to take the "law of averages" approach with this kind of thing that any randomness that negatively affects one player will affect them all relatively, and that's how they justify that it's OK. I'd argue most gamers don't see it that way. They only see that the game is out to get them because they aren't responsible for making a particular mistake. Statistically, it may be relative, but people don't think that way. And it negatively affects their experience.

For any player who plays the game for its intended purpose, which in this case is to score the most kills or points and win the match (not limited to super competitive players), I think it's best to input any randomness with a ton of care and discretion to ensure it does not affect the individual's ability to perform. I honestly see no benefit to doing so, and no, I'm not a super competitive player, just someone who likes for my computers to do what I tell them to do when I tell them to do it, and I don't think I'm much different from most people.

If there is something frustrating because I feel I am not in total control, then that would definitely be the Longshot. The weapon itself, the hit detection, is better than ever. But the handling of the gun is pretty messed up right now because of the acceleration during aiming and turning. The Longshot is meant to be an accurate weapon, therefor the owner should be in optimal control handling it. The acceleration is primarily implented for "hit as much as you can" weapons like assault rifles, it helps in speed keeping up with enemies passing by, but it destroys the natural feeling to make sweeping headshots with the Longshot and Boltok.

It would be a ridiculous idea changing the spread of the Longshot and Boltok, since they are precision weapons. The Lancer and Retro Lancer on the other hand... They are meant to have bulletspread, since they belong in a whole different category of weapons (mid-range combat, mutliple bullets). If what you are saying is true, then all of the rifles should be precision (laser) weapons without any spread? I think in a game, spread excists to introduce a tiny bit of the unexpected which triggers emotion or to make sure a weapon is used for a shorter range.

In my opinion Shotguns arren't meant to be pure precision weapons, especially the SoS is not a precision weapon. I think Shotguns are precision weapons which are more forgiving (wider spread) compared to SMG's but restricted to close-range combat with a much lower firing rate. Though Shotguns arren't supposed to be precision weapons, the Gnasher and SoS have no random bulletspread at all. I think it's characteristic for a Shotgun to have a random spread. Again, not too much spread, but just that little edge to keep things interesting.

The Gnasher doesn't gib when hitting 4 bullets or when too far away. You could say that is enough randomness already (considering the human mind which is already random according to you). The SoS on the other hand almost has no randomness at all, primarily it's to gib or not to gib, opposite to the Gnasher which can weaken an enemy. Because the SoS only has 2 outcomes, I think it's a pretty damn boring weapon. Therefor I am proposing a real Sawed-Off Shotgun with bulletspread and a theoretically unlimited but practically very short range.

Summary:

I don't think you're right concerning Shotguns (which is the subject of this thread). Yes people wan't to be in control of everything, especially handling controls. But the outcome after pressing fire must be characteristic for that type of weapon and the situation you are using it. A Longshot must hit 100% where you aim, but not during blindfire. Whereas the Retro Lancer is designed for close to mid-range combat which requires spread.


Ps I do like going into discussions and you are one of the few who actually is making a serious statement.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

~Reborn~

Do this Epic. Problems solved concerning Sawed-Off vs Gnasher Discussions.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Still beating.

[ben1bob]

don't know why you've reinvigoraated a dead thread.

i don't agree with this idea. the SOS doesn't belong in Gears and needs to go.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

don't know why you've reinvigoraated a dead thread.

i don't agree with this idea. the SOS doesn't belong in Gears and needs to go.

I reinvigorated this thread because sometimes people are reading it and getting new ideas from it which is useful.

You clearly haven't read anything, since I am not talking about the current Sawed-Off.

[Dark Borrelnoot]

Should I add this to my final testimony thread? Or would it be too much information? :P