The "perfect" Perfect Active Reload fix

[NoTrashPlease]

I am brand new to this forum and joined because I believe I have a solution to, in my opinion, a big issue with this game: the pre-active. Only shots fired that register as a hit on an opponent can be "actived" for a damage boost. I don't know if this has been proposed before, it seems so simple an idea, so if it has I apologize for repeating it or claiming the idea. I doubt this could be implemented in this game, but if there are future installments, which there are bound to be, I can think of no better way to fix pre-actives.
On the note of future Gears, and specifically an inevitable prequel, I don't think the Retro can be balanced, and to keep it as it is would mean, from what I understand; that it would be the only gun available in the Pendulum Wars. It certainly couldn't be changed differently then how it is in this game, but I am probably least knowledgeable of the story outside of the games. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please give your thoughts on either or both "issues" as I believe them to be.

[Gnashes]

It's been proposed before.

It's too much coding to change something that's not a big deal anyway, just my opinion.

[ChocolateBacon]

Pre-activing is not an issue.

[NFI]

There is not a problem that requires a solution. And this idea was brought up ages ago.

[NoTrashPlease]

When you say ages ago, do you mean on a previous Gears? As I stated before, I believe it to be an issue. Because so many use the preactive for any advantage they can get, it forces others to play that way or always be at a disadvantage. I think most often, preactives are the cause of the infamous "one shot" gnasher down, which I have a thought on that also. Many complain about the strength of actives period, and to have that strength before battle has commenced is rediculous. I appreciate your opinion, and if I may ask, how did you help with the torque?

[hellaeric09]

I am brand new to this forum and joined because I believe I have a solution to, in my opinion, a big issue with this game: the pre-active. Only shots fired that register as a hit on an opponent can be "actived" for a damage boost. I don't know if this has been proposed before, it seems so simple an idea, so if it has I apologize for repeating it or claiming the idea. I doubt this could be implemented in this game, but if there are future installments, which there are bound to be, I can think of no better way to fix pre-actives.
On the note of future Gears, and specifically an inevitable prequel, I don't think the Retro can be balanced, and to keep it as it is would mean, from what I understand; that it would be the only gun available in the Pendulum Wars. It certainly couldn't be changed differently then how it is in this game, but I am probably least knowledgeable of the story outside of the games. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please give your thoughts on either or both "issues" as I believe them to be.

Please explain how pre-actives are unfair and how the retro is unbalanced beyond repair.

[NFI]

When you say ages ago, do you mean on a previous Gears? As I stated before, I believe it to be an issue. Because so many use the preactive for any advantage they can get, it forces others to play that way or always be at a disadvantage. I think most often, preactives are the cause of the infamous "one shot" gnasher down, which I have a thought on that also. Many complain about the strength of actives period, and to have that strength before battle has commenced is rediculous. I appreciate your opinion, and if I may ask, how did you help with the torque?

It's not an issue. An issue is rank resets. Actives are in no way unfair and available to all. If it bugs you this much, utilize it yourself.

[NoTrashPlease]

"Because so many use the preactive for any advantage they can get, it forces others to play that way or always be at a disadvantage". The retro does too much damage, I'm sorry to repeat that as you've heard it many times before. The retro intrudes on the lancers proficiencies, in that it provides supressing fire just as well or better, and it can be controlled to shoot accurately at distance with far more damage than the lancer. If you were to tweak the retro how would you? Lower the damage, reduce the recoil, and maybe add to the magazine? Then it becomes the regular lancer does it not? I ask now if you believe the retro to be balanced, and if not, how do you think it possible to balance? And also, would you all like to keep the ability to gain advantages by preactiving if it could be fixed in a future title? That has been the argument, or do you think the quote at the beginning of this reply describes fair?

[Omega Realities]

How can it be an advantage if it is available to all?

[NoTrashPlease]

Have you evere played a fighting game? Fighting games tend to have top-tier characters, characters that have tools to dominate most of the other characters. In order to effectively compete you have to choose a better character, not your favorite. So the game is not balanced, you can choose the top-tier character or to preactive, but if you don't you are at a disadvantage, forcing people to play that way is unfair.

[LambentHammerburst]

Have you evere played a fighting game? Fighting games tend to have top-tier characters, characters that have tools to dominate most of the other characters. In order to effectively compete you have to choose a better character, not your favorite. So the game is not balanced, you can choose the top-tier character or to preactive, but if you don't you are at a disadvantage, forcing people to play that way is unfair.

Not quite the same example.
Top-Tier characters generally don't require you to to a trade-off. They are just better for the sake of being better.

Active Reloading (especially pre-activing) requires you to fire shots first. So for a Gnasher user to have a full clip of Active-Gnasher -- they need to fire off 8 shots first and reload.
I've beat many Gnasher rushers who had a Active Gnasher because they had to run away - they emptied their entire first clip, actived it, got into fight with me and didn't defeat me in 8 shots and now they have NO Gnasher ammo - myself; I reloaded and chased and won. I didn't waste my clip to pre-active.

I do however believe the time a active reload sticks around for needs to be 1/2'd.
You have too many pre-activing right at spawn and it sticks around far too long - I should be something you should have to do mid-fight or right before one (a flank ect)

[Omega Realities]

Have you evere played a fighting game? Fighting games tend to have top-tier characters, characters that have tools to dominate most of the other characters. In order to effectively compete you have to choose a better character, not your favorite. So the game is not balanced, you can choose the top-tier character or to preactive, but if you don't you are at a disadvantage, forcing people to play that way is unfair.

Who wouldn't want to take advantage of something that would help you play the game better. If you choose not to take advantage of something that had been given to EVERYONE to use, it's only your own fault.

[NoTrashPlease]

I have to reiterate, you are forced to play as everyone else does in order to compete, that is not balance. Top-tier characters in fighting games do have their downsides. In Super Street Fighter 4 E. Honda according to tier lists, was the best character in the game. E. Honda is a slow character with no projectiles like most of the other characters have. Many strong characters have disadvantages, trade-offs, such as lower health like Akuma or Seth, or other things. Back on subject, the gnasher "preactivers" are normally in your face in no time, a lot of the times causing you to also switch to your gnasher. If you lose, they get all the ammo they shot off for the preactive and then some. I am not even really talking about this game for this suggestion, maybe a future Gears. Do none of you think at all that this might be a good idea later, if it could not be changed so in this game? I believe I put that in the OP...

[NFI]

Have you evere played a fighting game? Fighting games tend to have top-tier characters, characters that have tools to dominate most of the other characters. In order to effectively compete you have to choose a better character, not your favorite. So the game is not balanced, you can choose the top-tier character or to preactive, but if you don't you are at a disadvantage, forcing people to play that way is unfair.

Disagree. I'm an avid street fighter player, I've taken part in EVO 3 separate occasions and did quite well. Ive beaten some top players in North America with mid tier players. Not to mention this example is not applicable. Fighting games are unique.

Fighting games each character has a specific play style and a strategy exists between each and every player. Tiers or no tiers a sound player with knowledge on the matchup can and will be high tier players. Having good tech skils, sound footies, frame knowledge and a sound game plan can easily swing the battle in your favor. Fighting games strike balance in ways that aren't conventional. However they are balanced. Any character can have weaknesses eploited.

I watched a guy at EVO trash a Ryu player w Hakan. I watched Luffy absolutely house Daigo's Ryu with Rose. Daigo is the greatest SF player to ever play. He invented most of the tech you see and reads players like books, and he lost to someone who outfoxed him. Every character has access to a tool set which you voluntarily choose. You don't need a top tier to win.


There s nothing unfair about some guy picking Seth when I pick Dan. I had a choice. Just like you ave a choice to reactive. However saying you need a high tier to compete is nonsense.

[Scootleberry]

I doubt there will be any more Gears games coming soon

[NoTrashPlease]

I doubt I can debate StreetFighter with you, but I am going to try again. You are correct, you don't have to choose a higher tier character to win, just like you don't have to preactive to win. On that note, I don't think you'll ever see a Dan or Rose or Hakan win a lot of majors. But it's not about them winning, it's about them being at a disadvantage for choosing that character instead of a higher tier character. The analogy was an attempt to show the disadvantage of someone who preactives versus those who don't and how that disadvantage is forced unless you play like other people. Tier-wh**ing I think is a good example of what I'm trying to get across. I'm not telling people to stop preactiving, I personally don't like it, but it's in the game. I don't even lose to it all the time, but nonetheless I am at a disadvantage. What I have been saying all along, which seems to have been completely neglected, is I believe there is an approach to getting rid of "preactives", maybe not in this game, but perhaps a future game, regardless of how long it might take to come out. I've seen on a few posts people clamoring to be rid of active entirely... better idea? So, once again, if it could be fixed so that no one had a damage boost before a fight, maybe after or during but not before, would you like for that to be implemented?

I've seen Daigo vids, he is an awesome player, and I have seen him beat by a Hakan, and Dictator(my char), and I hear he was destroyed by Poongko's Seth, which I have to see.

[NFI]

I doubt I can debate StreetFighter with you, but I am going to try again. You are correct, you don't have to choose a higher tier character to win, just like you don't have to preactive to win. On that note, I don't think you'll ever see a Dan or Rose or Hakan win a lot of majors. But it's not about them winning, it's about them being at a disadvantage for choosing that character instead of a higher tier character. The analogy was an attempt to show the disadvantage of someone who preactives versus those who don't and how that disadvantage is forced unless you play like other people. Tier-wh**ing I think is a good example of what I'm trying to get across. I'm not telling people to stop preactiving, I personally don't like it, but it's in the game. I don't even lose to it all the time, but nonetheless I am at a disadvantage. What I have been saying all along, which seems to have been completely neglected, is I believe there is an approach to getting rid of "preactives", maybe not in this game, but perhaps a future game, regardless of how long it might take to come out. I've seen on a few posts people clamoring to be rid of active entirely... better idea? So, once again, if it could be fixed so that no one had a damage boost before a fight, maybe after or during but not before, would you like for that to be implemented?

I've seen Daigo vids, he is an awesome player, and I have seen him beat by a Hakan, and Dictator(my char), and I hear he was destroyed by Poongko's Seth, which I have to see.

First addressing the main point- I'm comfortable w the actives. I don't pre active but it doesn't bother me. Second Daigo clobbered poongko's Seth in after hours play following Evo. I was there watching. Daigo is a monster.

[Tomen68]

It's definitely not unfair to use game mechanics which are buitin for a reason and it's your choice to do it or leave it. The headshot multiplier on the lancer "forces" you also to aim for the head in a 1v1 when your opponent does it, right? Otherwise you will loose (supposing you hit him as much as he hits you).

You could just complain this way about almost every bit of game mechanics in gears: an opponent taking cover (how unfair), mantle kicking (woohoo - major unfairness!) etc. pp. ...

[Sacrificed Son]

This is what I am thinking, after reading every post in this thread.

The Active Reload is not an issue, but it is an annoyance. While you are in battle, certain weapons with active can be annoying due to the sheer power they have with active bullets. While they may have a certain advantage, if you play smartly, you should be able to beat them out in the end. I, personally, am not a fan of the active reload because it is not needed. It was a cool idea but I honestly thought that getting a faster reload was already a good bonus, while the other active effects could sometimes be ridiculous. For example, the boltok does more damage and it shoots faster, which can be quite annoying and the boomshot gets cluster explosions. I believe the active reload needs a bit of a tone down in general just to make the game less annoying for certain people.

When it comes to preactiving, I honestly don't think it gives players an advantage because they just wasted a whole clip of whatever weapon they were using.

Also, about the Retro, I believe it is not that good. Recently they have made it a little better, but I feel that it has actually been the second most useless gun since the release of the game, which the first useless being the sawed-off. This is because if you are playing smartly, you can beat out the retro with the normal lancer and the hammerburst. With the gnasher, you don't have to be smart, but it can usually beat it due to the gnasher's power. The only time the retro seems that it is too powerful is when you accidentally rush into one. The problem with arguing with that is that is the retro's purpose, to fend off shotgun rushers and what not. Also, the bayonet charge usually does not work the way it is supposed to. Before I go on for another twelve paragraphs, I am going to stop here.

[Maaaaaz]

I am brand new to this forum and joined because I believe I have a solution to, in my opinion, a big issue with this game: the pre-active. Only shots fired that register as a hit on an opponent can be "actived" for a damage boost. I don't know if this has been proposed before, it seems so simple an idea, so if it has I apologize for repeating it or claiming the idea. I doubt this could be implemented in this game, but if there are future installments, which there are bound to be, I can think of no better way to fix pre-actives.
On the note of future Gears, and specifically an inevitable prequel, I don't think the Retro can be balanced, and to keep it as it is would mean, from what I understand; that it would be the only gun available in the Pendulum Wars. It certainly couldn't be changed differently then how it is in this game, but I am probably least knowledgeable of the story outside of the games. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please give your thoughts on either or both "issues" as I believe them to be.

I'd rather they just

-Massively nerfed the % increase the Gnasher gets
-Reduce Lancer % increase (but increase base damage!)
-Make Retro have no boost whatsoever

[LEGI0N47]

I don't really care if people are pre-activing at spawn becuase that takes time for them while i'm hauling ass to a better position or power weapon so IMO jokes on them. It wastes too much time.

[NoTrashPlease]

Again, what I have been saying all along, which seems to have been completely neglected, is I believe there is an approach to getting rid of "preactives", maybe not in this game, but perhaps a future game, regardless of how long it might take to come out. I've seen on a few posts people clamoring to be rid of active entirely... better idea? So, once again, if it could be fixed so that no one had a damage boost before a fight, maybe after or during but not before, would you like for that to be implemented?

[Gnashes]

Again, what I have been saying all along, which seems to have been completely neglected, is I believe there is an approach to getting rid of "preactives", maybe not in this game, but perhaps a future game, regardless of how long it might take to come out. I've seen on a few posts people clamoring to be rid of active entirely... better idea? So, once again, if it could be fixed so that no one had a damage boost before a fight, maybe after or during but not before, would you like for that to be implemented?

That is impossible to implement. There's no way Epic would so something like "You can't active bonus unless you have a kill".

[NoTrashPlease]

"Only shots fired that register as a hit on an opponent can be "actived" for a damage boost." I don't think that's impossible.

[Original]

I don't notice pre-activers alot anymore. My guess is they won't do anything to it because it's an add-on to reloading. But atleast after reloading about 2 or 3 times, it gets harder to active reload.

[Sacrificed Son]

I don't really care if people are pre-activing at spawn becuase that takes time for them while i'm hauling ass to a better position or power weapon so IMO jokes on them. It wastes too much time.

I didn't even think of that. A boomshot is always more valuable than a preactive gnasher... unless people sponge

[BOSSxKrutch]

There is not a problem that requires a solution. And this idea was brought up ages ago.

Agreed NFl.

[Vancouva]

It's a good idea, not sure why everyone is disliking it.

The only benefit to an AR should be getting a faster reload, that to me is a big enough advantage. The whole getting more damage has always been ridiculous, but that's Gears. I hated people who preactive with a passion, but now I do it as well. I am not going to put myself at a disadvantage by not doing it.

Zeta is fun to play too, no active bonus and no stopping power but sometimes the lobbies are kind of empty.

[NoTrashPlease]

Thank you Vancouver, I am baffled by the amount of negative feedback. I like the idea of weapon specific active boosts. Originally, I thought the lancer in gears 1 obtained a boost of only a faster fire rate, as with the Boltok. And then some guns don't need a boost IMO other than reloading faster, like the Gnasher or Hammerburst, and you can revert the reload bar on that gun for that purpose. I'm anti-gnasher, I'll just throw that out there... The damage boost, however, is just about the only thing that makes the Lancer viable. As I said before, the Retro does the same thing better, and both trump it in damage, even with the active if I'm not mistaken by data I've seen posted before. I'm pro-Lancer, I'll just throw that out there... About the only thing I could consider done to the Lancer, is a slight magazine reduction. To stay on topic, NO gun should recieve a boost of any kind before a fight. Does anyone disagree with that?

[NoTrashPlease]

It's definitely not unfair to use game mechanics which are buitin for a reason and it's your choice to do it or leave it. The headshot multiplier on the lancer "forces" you also to aim for the head in a 1v1 when your opponent does it, right? Otherwise you will loose (supposing you hit him as much as he hits you).

You could just complain this way about almost every bit of game mechanics in gears: an opponent taking cover (how unfair), mantle kicking (woohoo - major unfairness!) etc. pp. ...

The active reload game mechanic was not intended to be used to gain an advantage BEFORE a fight, or do you think that's the reason it was "buitin"? The headshot multiplier and mantle kick are both options to the player IN COMBAT, nothing "pre" about it. Using cover is the only example you used that someone may use for a "pre" advantage, but that is one of that game mechanic's intended purpose, along with not dying. Any other game mechanics you would like to list that could be complained about in this way? I could do without the sarcasm if you don't understand the topic.

[NavonodWDragon]

The only real problem I have with active reloads besides the dramatic change it gives
some weapons is the amount of people who fire a few shots in a wall and wait until
someone is nearby to reload. Maybe a good way to fix this is to reduce the ammo carrying capacity. If they only have two clips they may think twice before wasting some of it.

[Buskii]

I don't understand the argument, "its there for you to use it, therefore:balance". It's like putting your hands over your ears and going la la la.

[NavonodWDragon]

Let's look at this historically. People started using clubs others had to as well. The same goes for swords, bows and arrows and, guns, etc. The people who continued to use clubs were destroyed while others were forced to assimilate. So if people abuse the active reload others must as well or be forced to fight an uphill battle.

[Vivica]

Pre-activing is not an issue.

This, 10 of these.
Blasting off a round at the start of each match is as much a part of Gears as wall bouncing is!

[Kuronishen]

You do realize pre-activing has been around since the first game, right? if Epic hasn't changed it by now it's probably not going to happen

[NoTrashPlease]

Pre-activing is an exploit of the Active Reload game mechanic, it wasn't intended for players to be emptying their clips before a fight to gain an advantage. Apparently it has become a crutch. If it is expected that everyone is preactiving for damage boosts, why not change the base damage so you already have that damage? For so many to not want this game to be COD, you seem to want the stopping power perk(increased weapon damage) from COD. The argument is that people are exploiting a game mechanic for an advantage, and those who do not are always at a disadvantage. They are forced to play a certain way or constantly be at a disadvantage. Honestly does that sound fair/balanced? Wallbouncing is another exploited game mechanic, but that I use, the major difference is that you are not getting an advantage BEFORE combat takes place. And how much of an advantage over another player are you receiving by wallbouncing when they don't, versus having extra damage when they don't? Active Reload is a staple to Gears, pre-activing is an unfortunate side-effect that can be fixed.

[LambentHammerburst]

Exploiting a game mechanic?
LMAO!!!!
It existed in Gears 1, meaning if they felt it was a exploit -- would of been patched/removed in Gears 2 and 3.
The fact they kept it in the sequels when it is easily removed -- not a exploit.

[NoTrashPlease]

The fact that you are using a game mechanic for unintended purposes -- exploit. Do you feel the Gnasher is too strong? From what I have read "they" do, yet the gun only gets stronger with TU6 from the last gears and has the same effect in this one. So... LMAO!!!! Your logic is flawed.

[NFI]

Pre-activing is an exploit of the Active Reload game mechanic, it wasn't intended for players to be emptying their clips before a fight to gain an advantage. Apparently it has become a crutch. If it is expected that everyone is preactiving for damage boosts, why not change the base damage so you already have that damage? For so many to not want this game to be COD, you seem to want the stopping power perk(increased weapon damage) from COD. The argument is that people are exploiting a game mechanic for an advantage, and those who do not are always at a disadvantage. They are forced to play a certain way or constantly be at a disadvantage. Honestly does that sound fair/balanced? Wallbouncing is another exploited game mechanic, but that I use, the major difference is that you are not getting an advantage BEFORE combat takes place. And how much of an advantage over another player are you receiving by wallbouncing when they don't, versus having extra damage when they don't? Active Reload is a staple to Gears, pre-activing is an unfortunate side-effect that can be fixed.

It doesn't work that way. It's not an exploit. Neither is wall bouncing.

[NFI]

The fact that you are using a game mechanic for unintended purposes -- exploit. Do you feel the Gnasher is too strong? From what I have read "they" do, yet the gun only gets stronger with TU6 from the last gears and has the same effect in this one. So... LMAO!!!! Your logic is flawed.

No his logic isn't and your rudeness belies the fact you have a completely invalid argument. You claim an active is an exploit because it's not intended, yet turn around and defend your exploitation of the wall bouncing mechanic justifying it because it doesn't grant some per battle advantage. No, your logic is flawed. Pre active is not any more an exploit than wall bouncing, double standard not with standing.