Why do most people prefer Execution rules?

[Jim Tuna]

Now don't hate on me, it's just a question.

I've always thought it was harder and more of a challenge playing Warzone rules. You can get hammerburst killed from long range. With Execution rules, you have time to get up before they get to you. Maybe there is some other logic I'm not thinking of, which is why I started this thread.

[Eco93]

Because rifle-campers then need to get up close to finish you. I think that's the reason.

[dzs Awez0me]

because they suck at not getting down/takingcover

[oaTTrane]

Because rifle-campers then need to get up close to finish you. I think that's the reason.

That's certainly the reason I enjoy it. If you roll with some good team mates you can get a chance to get revived if some riffle camper downs you. Where as on warzone they will finish you off before your team mates get a chance. I think it just makes the game much more interesting. Along the same lines, it forces teams to be aggressive and push you for kills. It also promotes gnasher gameplay which is where it's at for a lot of us.

[oaTTrane]

because they suck at not getting down/takingcover

Or maybe some people just find constantly staying in cover very boring.

[Stewarto]

Because generally most people liked using their Gnasher. Therefore execution rules appealed more to them.

[dzs Awez0me]

Or maybe some people just find constantly staying in cover very boring.

If you imply that you have to sit still behind the same piece of cover not moving to use it effectively you are wrong.

[Sly Reflex]

Because generally most people liked using their Gnasher. Therefore execution rules appealed more to them.

This more or less. The only way to get kills is to either use a power weapon, or get up close and personal with the Gnasher. It plays into the hands of people who play solely like this. If you down someone with a rifle I can almost guarantee that you'll get the kill stolen by someone who is closer. Not that it matters, it's all about the win.

[oaTTrane]

If you imply that you have to sit still behind the same piece of cover not moving to use it effectively you are wrong.

Good thing I wasn't implying that then.

[myevo8you]

Basically it boils down to the "gears vets" getting mad because now the AR's are a viable option for the first time in the series and they get bent out of shape because someone who can shoot a gun accurately can kill them while they are trying to rush straight through the middle with their gnasher out. These are the same people that complain about the sawed off, retro, hammerburst, and lancer. They want the game to revolve around the Gnasher and nothing else. The tactics that they made in 2006 from Gears one are no longer effective and they just simply CANNOT get out of that mind set. I bet if you asked these people they would want the damage of the AR's to be reduced to about 1/2, the sawed off and retro gone, and the gansher buffed to the way it was in Gears 2 after TU6. For those that don't know after TU6 in Gears 2 the Gnasher was basically a 2 shot down gun from 300 feet away.

[Shmehh]

Warzone is a little bit more slow paced.

For example, if someone is staying at the tower by boltok and watching over the Boomshot on gridlock, it would be very hard for someone to grab that power weapon against a good player on warzone settings. On execution they are able to grab it, get downed and crawl away/get revived by a teammate. Execution promotes more teamfire in order for them to not get away with that power weapon, so more teamwork.

[oaTTrane]

Basically it boils down to the "gears vets" getting mad because now the AR's are a viable option for the first time in the series and they get bent out of shape because someone who can shoot a gun accurately can kill them while they are trying to rush straight through the middle with their gnasher out. These are the same people that complain about the sawed off, retro, hammerburst, and lancer. They want the game to revolve around the Gnasher and nothing else. The tactics that they made in 2006 from Gears one are no longer effective and they just simply CANNOT get out of that mind set. I bet if you asked these people they would want the damage of the AR's to be reduced to about 1/2, the sawed off and retro gone, and the gansher buffed to the way it was in Gears 2 after TU6. For those that don't know after TU6 in Gears 2 the Gnasher was basically a 2 shot down gun from 300 feet away.

I certainly agree that a lot of gears vets get mad about the assault riffles, but no one wants the post TU6 shotty back.

[Doc Holliday v2]

Execution = What Gears of War IS.


Nuff said.

[Dan Ace X]

Because rifle-campers then need to get up close to finish you. I think that's the reason.

Yeah, this. I always preferred Execution. I don't enjoy rifle-dominated gameplay in Gears.

[dzs Awez0me]

when gears was released everyone played warzone so i say its the other way around

[Broomhandle45]

People always say rifle dominated gameplay, but I had 6000 kills in my gnasher before I hit 3000 kills with my Lancer. That's still a pretty big gap.

[ahgha]

With how powerful the rifles are now it's incredibly easy to sit back behind cover and down/kill an opponent (with non execution rules) without ever putting yourself in danger.

I find that boring so I play execution.

[nagel 138]

because they suck at not getting down/takingcover

Or maybe you actually have to claim your kill instead of camping behind cover half way across the map with your Hammerburst.

[BumbleBeeTuna]

Execution = What Gears of War IS.


Nuff said.

Makes the gameplay more engaging, and leaving your comfort zone to expose yourself to collect your prize makes it... I agree Gears. Executing a downed opponent is also Gears & you cant execute from cover.

[nagel 138]

Basically it boils down to the "gears vets" getting mad because now the AR's are a viable option for the first time in the series and they get bent out of shape because someone who can shoot a gun accurately can kill them while they are trying to rush straight through the middle with their gnasher out. These are the same people that complain about the sawed off, retro, hammerburst, and lancer. They want the game to revolve around the Gnasher and nothing else. The tactics that they made in 2006 from Gears one are no longer effective and they just simply CANNOT get out of that mind set. I bet if you asked these people they would want the damage of the AR's to be reduced to about 1/2, the sawed off and retro gone, and the gansher buffed to the way it was in Gears 2 after TU6. For those that don't know after TU6 in Gears 2 the Gnasher was basically a 2 shot down gun from 300 feet away.

Rifles were always a viable option, their was never a problem with them except for the user. I still play Gears 1 and thats really all ive been playing lately, and you know what? Ive been getting kills with the rifle, the same rifle that everyone claims to be useless.

The reason everyone used the Gnasher in the past games is because it was actually fun, God forbid you play a game to have fun and not pad your k/d. Seriously, rifle gameplay is just plain boring, and in Gears 3, takes no skill whatsoever. It promotes camping and its nearly impossible to move throughout the map unless you and the other 4 players on your team are moving as a pack.

This game is turning into CoD. Its a shame really, this game had a ton of potential.

[MiniPistolTroika]

I always liked gears and called it the second chance game. It gives u a second chance if i wanna die from afar id go play another gam elol

[Jim Tuna]

Yeah I can certainly see why people prefer Execution rules now. I'm not against it or anything, I don't mind if someone takes my kill if I am too far away. It just seems to me that Warzone rules are harder than Execution rules. It makes me be more careful when I am playing. Like mentioned before, if someone is downed at boomshot on Gridlock, they can crawl away behind cover with Execution rules. Can't do that with Warzone rules, so it makes it harder.

I may be a just a tad biased though since I played only Warzone on Gears 1 and I played Guardian (only b/c it was the closest thing to TDM) on Gears 2.

The only game type I believe has a valid argument to have Execution rules is KOTH, even though I like it the way it is.

[Richtophen]

when gears was released everyone played warzone so i say its the other way around

That's because the community was a lot better back then and didn't camp on Warzone. They also didn't run away from shotgun fights and steal kills as often. The only problems I remember came from the people who did the roadie run glitch or the people that just wasted a shot with the sniper to go get the overpowered 1 shot anywhere down from an active reload.

[SiMBiiOTE]

It all started in Gears 1. In warzone both teams would camp across from the power weapons and wait for the other team to pick one up. If there wasn't a complete idiot on either team games would take forever.

[TheRisenOsiris]

I've always preferred Warzone rules over Execution rules but I still love to play execution. It's just a completely different dynamic.

[iDuskk]

Now don't hate on me, it's just a question.

I've always thought it was harder and more of a challenge playing Warzone rules. You can get hammerburst killed from long range. With Execution rules, you have time to get up before they get to you. Maybe there is some other logic I'm not thinking of, which is why I started this thread.

This is what actually makes it easier IMO.


People prefer Execution because it requires a more aggressive, fast paced style of play. You can't have your whole team camp in spawn because you need to get up close to get your kills, so its more exciting to play then warzone where there is no penalty for camping.

[Savage Link]

I like exe because if u want to pawn u need teamwork, playing smart to get close to take a kill

[RVS300z]

It's up close and personal!!!

[Porshapwr]

It's more personal. The game can still be played via cover but the difference is that when you down someone, you have to risk yourself to finish him off. THAT is what makes it more fun. It also forces your team to support and cover fire more as well as making reviving a key mechanic in the game. With warzone rules, revives only happen if the person can get behind cover before getting shot which is much more rare.


I personally despise warzone rules and the OP hammerburst now only makes it worse.

[KRAZIE ARTIST]

Basically it boils down to the "gears vets" getting mad because now the AR's are a viable option for the first time in the series and they get bent out of shape because someone who can shoot a gun accurately can kill them while they are trying to rush straight through the middle with their gnasher out. These are the same people that complain about the sawed off, retro, hammerburst, and lancer. They want the game to revolve around the Gnasher and nothing else. The tactics that they made in 2006 from Gears one are no longer effective and they just simply CANNOT get out of that mind set. I bet if you asked these people they would want the damage of the AR's to be reduced to about 1/2, the sawed off and retro gone, and the gansher buffed to the way it was in Gears 2 after TU6. For those that don't know after TU6 in Gears 2 the Gnasher was basically a 2 shot down gun from 300 feet away.

So your not a gears vet? This is a problem I see a lot on these forums. You get a people that complain that gears vets are dumb and cannot adapt. But the real question is, How can you say such accusations if you yourself are not a gears vet and honestly you would not understand? Because if you were a real gears vet who played since '06 then you would know and truly understand the reasoning for the gnasher and all its glory. Other than that I can't take people who put down the gnasher seriously.

[KakashiiX2]

Another thread to let the rifle haters breathe. :|

When will the madness STOP !!!

[Implicit Codes]

Basically it boils down to the "gears vets" getting mad because now the AR's are a viable option for the first time in the series and they get bent out of shape because someone who can shoot a gun accurately can kill them while they are trying to rush straight through the middle with their gnasher out. These are the same people that complain about the sawed off, retro, hammerburst, and lancer. They want the game to revolve around the Gnasher and nothing else. The tactics that they made in 2006 from Gears one are no longer effective and they just simply CANNOT get out of that mind set. I bet if you asked these people they would want the damage of the AR's to be reduced to about 1/2, the sawed off and retro gone, and the gansher buffed to the way it was in Gears 2 after TU6. For those that don't know after TU6 in Gears 2 the Gnasher was basically a 2 shot down gun from 300 feet away.

Ya I get bent out of shape when people stay in one spot and rifle the whole game. Using the rifles are easy and boring if I want to I can just take one out and start destroying anyone rifling. It's just so boring and easy that I don't even want to bother with it. I can't change the fact that using the gnasher is fun and I don't want the
gnasher to be how it was after TU6.

[myevo8you]

So your not a gears vet? This is a problem I see a lot on these forums. You get a people that complain that gears vets are dumb and cannot adapt. But the real question is, How can you say such accusations if you yourself are not a gears vet and honestly you would not understand? Because if you were a real gears vet who played since '06 then you would know and truly understand the reasoning for the gnasher and all its glory. Other than that I can't take people who put down the gnasher seriously.

UH, I AM a Gears vet. I HAVE been playing since November 2006. I disliked the 99% gnasher use in Gears 1. I would play ranked and piss people off because I would run around matches of Execution and do nothing but chainsaw. The Gnasher IS the most OP gun in the series. PERIOD. Tell me HOW a gun that can gib EIGHT people without reloading, without hardaiming is NOT op'd. You just can't do it. The so-called "gears vets" that whined and complained about the sawed off are the most pathetic players in history. Lets do a simple comparison of the guns, shall we.

Sawed off = ONE SHOT, 5 second reload, 4 bullets.

Gnasher = EIGHT SHOTS, 1 second reload, 16 bullets.

In Gears 3 i literally have about 75 kills with the sawed off due to it being an inferior gun. 76% of my kills are with the gnasher, and only 14% are with rifles, and the other 10% are with the various other weapons. While I do enjoy the Gnasher, the blinders have been on people since Gears 1 due to it's unintended dominance. Remember host shotgun? As someone who would get host about 90% of the time I did my best NOT to use it because it was a VERY CHEAP way to get kills. If you TRUELY were a Gears vet you would welcome changes, as the Gears one mentality of start match, switch to shotgun, rush to middle, SHOTGUN ORGY, rinse repeat got REALLY OLD, REALLY FAST. Now while I am in no means saying turn it into a call of duty clone, the changes WERE NEEDED.

It all really boils down to people being creatures of habit and when that cycle of what they know and how effective it was is broken they want to complain about it and blame everything and everyone else for their shortcomings.

[Jim Tuna]

What about the hybrid rules such as in CTL where you can kills a downed enemy from afar but also revive yourself?

[KakashiiX2]

UH, I AM a Gears vet. I HAVE been playing since November 2006. I disliked the 99% gnasher use in Gears 1. I would play ranked and piss people off because I would run around matches of Execution and do nothing but chainsaw. The Gnasher IS the most OP gun in the series. PERIOD. Tell me HOW a gun that can gib EIGHT people without reloading, without hardaiming is NOT op'd. You just can't do it. The so-called "gears vets" that whined and complained about the sawed off are the most pathetic players in history. Lets do a simple comparison of the guns, shall we.

Sawed off = ONE SHOT, 5 second reload, 4 bullets.

Gnasher = EIGHT SHOTS, 1 second reload, 16 bullets.

In Gears 3 i literally have about 75 kills with the sawed off due to it being an inferior gun. 76% of my kills are with the gnasher, and only 14% are with rifles, and the other 10% are with the various other weapons. While I do enjoy the Gnasher, the blinders have been on people since Gears 1 due to it's unintended dominance. Remember host shotgun? As someone who would get host about 90% of the time I did my best NOT to use it because it was a VERY CHEAP way to get kills. If you TRUELY were a Gears vet you would welcome changes, as the Gears one mentality of start match, switch to shotgun, rush to middle, SHOTGUN ORGY, rinse repeat got REALLY OLD, REALLY FAST. Now while I am in no means saying turn it into a call of duty clone, the changes WERE NEEDED.

It all really boils down to people being creatures of habit and when that cycle of what they know and how effective it was is broken they want to complain about it and blame everything and everyone else for their shortcomings.

QFTW(10charmutha*beep*)

[nagel 138]

UH, I AM a Gears vet. I HAVE been playing since November 2006. I disliked the 99% gnasher use in Gears 1. I would play ranked and piss people off because I would run around matches of Execution and do nothing but chainsaw. The Gnasher IS the most OP gun in the series. PERIOD. Tell me HOW a gun that can gib EIGHT people without reloading, without hardaiming is NOT op'd. You just can't do it. The so-called "gears vets" that whined and complained about the sawed off are the most pathetic players in history. Lets do a simple comparison of the guns, shall we.

Sawed off = ONE SHOT, 5 second reload, 4 bullets.

Gnasher = EIGHT SHOTS, 1 second reload, 16 bullets.

In Gears 3 i literally have about 75 kills with the sawed off due to it being an inferior gun. 76% of my kills are with the gnasher, and only 14% are with rifles, and the other 10% are with the various other weapons. While I do enjoy the Gnasher, the blinders have been on people since Gears 1 due to it's unintended dominance. Remember host shotgun? As someone who would get host about 90% of the time I did my best NOT to use it because it was a VERY CHEAP way to get kills. If you TRUELY were a Gears vet you would welcome changes, as the Gears one mentality of start match, switch to shotgun, rush to middle, SHOTGUN ORGY, rinse repeat got REALLY OLD, REALLY FAST. Now while I am in no means saying turn it into a call of duty clone, the changes WERE NEEDED.

It all really boils down to people being creatures of habit and when that cycle of what they know and how effective it was is broken they want to complain about it and blame everything and everyone else for their shortcomings.

Your entire post proves that you in no way, shape, or form are a true veteran.

Also, why do you say you are a vet, then state that vets are most pathetic players in history?

If your really that bad at video games that you had to run around with your chainsaw out, i think Hello Kitty Island Adventures may be a bit more down your alley.

[iTz gEnErIkNaMe]

UH, I AM a Gears vet. I HAVE been playing since November 2006. I disliked the 99% gnasher use in Gears 1. I would play ranked and piss people off because I would run around matches of Execution and do nothing but chainsaw. The Gnasher IS the most OP gun in the series. PERIOD. Tell me HOW a gun that can gib EIGHT people without reloading, without hardaiming is NOT op'd. You just can't do it. The so-called "gears vets" that whined and complained about the sawed off are the most pathetic players in history. Lets do a simple comparison of the guns, shall we.

Sawed off = ONE SHOT, 5 second reload, 4 bullets.

Gnasher = EIGHT SHOTS, 1 second reload, 16 bullets.

In Gears 3 i literally have about 75 kills with the sawed off due to it being an inferior gun. 76% of my kills are with the gnasher, and only 14% are with rifles, and the other 10% are with the various other weapons. While I do enjoy the Gnasher, the blinders have been on people since Gears 1 due to it's unintended dominance. Remember host shotgun? As someone who would get host about 90% of the time I did my best NOT to use it because it was a VERY CHEAP way to get kills. If you TRUELY were a Gears vet you would welcome changes, as the Gears one mentality of start match, switch to shotgun, rush to middle, SHOTGUN ORGY, rinse repeat got REALLY OLD, REALLY FAST. Now while I am in no means saying turn it into a call of duty clone, the changes WERE NEEDED.

It all really boils down to people being creatures of habit and when that cycle of what they know and how effective it was is broken they want to complain about it and blame everything and everyone else for their shortcomings.

Please, post on this forum more. I'm not kidding. This sums up EVERYTHING that I think about Gears 1 and people who only use the Gnasher. The Gnasher is undoubtedly a fun gun to use... like every other weapon in Gears 3. It's amazing to imagine that people actually complain about a game getting a taste of weapon balance!

Your entire post proves that you in no way, shape, or form are a true veteran.

He has played since 2006. Is that not what makes a veteran? Or do you magically have to have a specific opinion about a game in order to be a veteran of it?

[Porshapwr]

Your entire post proves that you in no way, shape, or form are a true veteran.

Also, why do you say you are a vet, then state that vets are most pathetic players in history?

If your really that bad at video games that you had to run around with your chainsaw out, i think Hello Kitty Island Adventures may be a bit more down your alley.

This may be one of the dumbest posts I've seen on this forum.

[chrisx2k6]

I think some of you guys have hit the nail on the head...Execution is for 1-dimensional shotty players. They don't have the intellectual skills/patience to play in a diverse weapons environment. Too many variables and tactics for them to wrap their heads around. They get owned in Warzone, and that's the bottom line. Vets or not, they are scrubs in Gears 3, while they may be dominant in Gears 1. Execution is a joke. I can't kill somebody that I've lit up with an assault rifle?...That's absurd. What a contrived game type for the Gears 1 knuckleheads.

[Porshapwr]

This may be one of the dumbest posts I've seen on this forum.

I think some of you guys have hit the nail on the head...Execution is for 1-dimensional shotty players. They don't have the intellectual skills/patience to play in a diverse weapons environment. Too many variables and tactics for them to wrap their heads around. They get owned in Warzone, and that's the bottom line. Vets or not, they are scrubs in Gears 3, while they may be dominant in Gears 1. Execution is a joke. I can't kill somebody that I've lit up with an assault rifle?...That's absurd. What a contrived game type for the Gears 1 knuckleheads.

I take back my previous statement and apply it to this post instead.