Before I go on with this, I'd like to point out that I'm not angry at the game, I'm not irritated by most of the mechanics, and I'm not trolling. I am being completely serious; please take my thread seriously before issuing your two-cents. I hold everyone's opinions in this thread the same, unless you say something that is intolerable. Post your opinions in a civil manner and wait for a response in a similar manner. If someone trolls, don't take the bait. Refrain from cursing as much as possible, please. And above all, stay mature and on topic as much as possible. If this thread is too long for you to take the time to read, then this isn't the right place for you. In advance I'd like to thank you for reading this. It's somewhat long, but it's not a dry thread, in my opinion.
The beginning of this thread is my conclusion from the results I took after just playing this game, reading up on the forums, and getting a general feeling from the community. If you'd rather skip that, then go down until the red font.
Alright, after careful analysis of many videos, commentaries, gameplays, as well as my own gameplays, I've come to an understanding of what this split with the community is really about. I'll try to make this as non-bias as possible, and only point out flaws within each group that makes them dislike or even hate each other.
It's not so much about the rifles and shotguns as it is with the power of stopping power.
You see, when Gears 2 introduced stopping power, it didn't have as major an effect as it did with Gears 3. That and client-side hit-detection wasn't as good in Gears 2 as it is in Gears 3. We all know that in Gears 3, no matter what direction you're facing, when you are rushing a rifle-user with any weapon, your mobility is extremely hindered. Zeta has removed stopping power, as well as the perfect active reload damage boost(or at least 90% of it. It's hard to judge the damage boost, if any, while in the middle of heavy fire).
Here are the 2 sides we think about when we encounter people on the forums or in games, not counting power weapons. I'll label them "pro-rifle" and "pro-gnasher," to reduce any sort of trolling and flaming that comes with "lancer-prostitutes" and "gnasher-prostitutes/rushers."
- The pro-rifle are for stopping power. They believe it helps them stop rushing, and believe if you're smart enough about it, you can get around it via cover, wall bouncing, and strafing. They aren't against pro-gnasher necessarily, but they believe that having a game with no stopping power creates a Gears 1 scenario, where anyone who isn't nearly perfect with the gnasher will consistently lose, each time, every time.
- The pro-gnasher are against stopping power. They believe it hinders their mobility too much, and that the increased damage boost to every weapon makes stopping power a superfluous(or "over-the-top") mechanic that renders any sort of push(against a team, of course) pointless. They are disappointed with how, not that they can't rush whenever they want, but that they can't successfully push with any weapon once a team has set up perfectly, with little-to-no weaknesses in their base.
- The pro-rifle are happy about stopping power, because the pro-gnasher guys can't just run willy-nilly and shotgun you down after you've pumped almost 70% of a lancer clip into his gut.
- The pro-gnasher have probably already played Zeta love it because they are given their mobility back, while still being able to get downed by a smart team, regardless of the weapon
Now, while I believe that the rifles were indeed under-powered and almost useless in the previous two games, that they needed a boost, I don't believe that stopping power should have increased to the amount that it has. Was Epic not putting in client-side hit-detection as a factor when they chose to make it this intense? That's a possibility, but I won't lean towards one side or another.
Hopefully we can stop saying "gnasher-prostitute" and "rifle-cat" to each other now, now that we(might) understand a bit more about what is really going on.
If you decided to skip to the bottom, here's the section you should read.
While I can't force you all to say these things, or not say, in this case, I would highly recommend and plead that you don't use phrases such as "The gnasher made Gears," "Adapt," or any number of hateful messages that imply that you are better than someone, or that this thread is pointless because it's long. I took a lot of time to write this, don't bash it. I don't care if you're a gears-god or if you picked up the game a second ago, if your attitude isn't tolerable to anyone, it makes you not appear to be civil, but more of a close-minded-jerk than anything.
Here is my suggestion:
Instead of removing stopping power, why not change the way the mechanic works? Similar to the ink-grenade, I feel that the mechanics of stopping power have lost much of what they were intended to be. Stopping power was implemented to stop Gears of War from becoming a single-gun game.
I don't know if any of you have noticed, but if you are moving towards an enemy, be it a straight bee-line towards your foe or a very elaborate method, you will get effected by stopping power the same way.
In my opinion, I believe that it would be better to reduce stopping power as it is, and to decrease the intensity of it depending on what degree you're facing your opponent. I believe some experimentation would be necessary to implement this correctly, but I think it would prove to be a better solution to the way we have things right now. I'll explain:
- When facing, running, or rolling directly at an opponent, stopping power is in full effect(or the slightly less powerful version I would consider).
- When looking away, running, or rolling in a different direction, stopping power has a gradually lessened effect than its full-force brethren. Facing at an 80 degree angle to your opponent would have tremendously less impact than facing 10 degrees away.
I think this would be a better solution, rather than to remove stopping power completely. Stopping power needs to be put back in its place as a mindless-rushing-prevention, but at the same time I think someone should work for their kill, on both sides. Someone shouldn't have the power to mindlessly run on a map with one gun and kill everyone, and someone shouldn't be able to sit up on the top of a hill behind cover and down you before you can get close to them, unless they had help from someone else.
I'll have a poll up shortly. Thanks again for taking the time to read my thread, I hope it becomes a civil debate instead of a childish argument thread. I could use less infractions.