My views on how weapons should be (Opinion)

[III HOOP III]

I like it all. I just want a good amount of damage per HB shot. The HB should be a beast for every shot landed, but take a good amount of skill to land the shots.

[TH3 ZomBifiieD]

As best as I can time myself, I'm firing 5-6 shots per seconds with less than a foot spread at about 45 feet in 1 second.

Hard to test when I'm using a stopwatch, but I'm firing at perhaps 60-70% of the full-auto firing rate.

Did this test personally many times with a stop watch honestly. I can Maintain Pinpoint Accuracy at longrange, firing 4 bullets in 1.06 of a second at best. Never really did any better without the bloom countering my "feathering" LambentHammerburst can you do the damage math for me i don't have all the weapon Stats availiable ATM?

However when close/Mid range feathering i can do what gnashes said and fire at about 75% efficiency and have a high probability of hitting my target. not guaranteed to hit, but in a pinch i may increase my ROF and hope to get lucky. I think with "Adaptive Bursting" (coined a new term xD) i can fire about 5-6 shots without much bloom interference.

That only works if you can Burstfire just after feathering a few bullets. By the time your burst ends your bloom would be just about maximized though, so follow up shots after attempting this in the next two seconds are near impossible. (Very rarely do i attempt this), as the disadvantages tend to outweigh the advantages.

I also like to formally apologize to the Forums for being such a Tryhard Retro Whore xD i hate that it is this ridiculously overpowered, Even at CQC range... 108 damage a shot with a potential for about 5-9 bullets connecting in CQC really gives me the "shivers". Add to that, that after using the Retro almost exclusively for three months i have been recently working on mastering Hipfire feathering, and that seems to be quite useful for preserving your bloom for a full auto situation when i come across a Gnasher in CQC.

All in all this weapon has such potential to be beyond overpowered if you learn to use it moderately well. The kicker is it really isn't hard to do either


EDIT: Great post also Lambent! Your weapon balance suggestions are alot better than the current games, (aside from Zeta)

[LambentHammerburst]

TH3 ZomBifiieD -- you be outputting 360/432[AR] damage in 4 shots. Players health is 600. So you'd just need 3/2[AR] more bullets. So you're downing in a second and a half.

Changed up my Retro idea.
Making the AR 10%. Overall it doesn't change the power of the gun. The only time the difference could be seen is on unharmed targets. If they have ANY damage - the shots needed to down match what they presently are (minus long as my original idea nerfed it anyways).
This idea greatly balances the gun even more.

[LordOfDeath]

I personally think we are going with Zeta rules and the Hammy is going to be a burst weapon again then the Lancer and the Hammy would be balanced. ( maybe give a slightly higher base damage to the Lancer but thats it)

As for the Retro, just reduce its effective range and maybe increase the recoil, its a high recoil weapon already but i still feel its not enough and a stun for a failed charge.

Sawed off is fine now, except for the melee damage it deals out which i feel is far too much, Gnasher if we are going with Zeta rules then its fine if not reduce its active damage or get rid of it altogether.

Anyway i hope we do go with Zeta rules as it would be perfect, if not then active damage boosts and stopping power should be reduced heavily ( especially active damage boosts.)

Hammerburst is still semiautomatic,you can catch that fact from overrun gameplay video.

As for topic itself, i think hammerburst should get slight dmg increase.Compared to other starting rifle lancer, it is underpowered as hell.(Yeah, i know it is meant to be long range rifle,so dmg wise it just could not be as effective)

Lancer can down 3-4 people in one clip if you have half active clip(i have done this) Hammerburst can down max 2 people only because if second person has taken damage before.I would like at least add headshot dmg increase and maybe one bullet less to down.

Retro isnt even rifle,it is full auto shotgun.Like said before, reducing retro's long range damage GREATLY would balance weapon fine. Honestly, if you are going to keep retro in game, make it pick-up weapon as it should been in first place.

[LambentHammerburst]

Hammerburst is still semiautomatic,you can catch that fact from overrun gameplay video.

As for topic itself, i think hammerburst should get slight dmg increase.Compared to other starting rifle lancer, it is underpowered as hell.(Yeah, i know it is meant to be long range rifle,so dmg wise it just could not be as effective)

Lancer can down 3-4 people in one clip if you have half active clip(i have done this) Hammerburst can down max 2 people only because if second person has taken damage before.I would like at least add headshot dmg increase and maybe one bullet less to down.

The Hammerburst has been completely redesigned. They made it so after 3 shots the recoil is insane. It's also been displayed it can pop heads. So expect the Hammerburst to deal more damage per shot and have a head shot multiplier.

Retro isnt even rifle,it is full auto shotgun.Like said before, reducing retro's long range damage GREATLY would balance weapon fine. Honestly, if you are going to keep retro in game, make it pick-up weapon as it should been in first place.

Read my OP. The changes I suggest make it significantly more balanced. It as a pickup weapon is kinda pointless as it isn't powerful enough to be one really. It'd need a buff to justify making it a pickup. Yes it's powerful and OP for a starting gun - however it's not OP enough to make a pickup. If you get what I mean. It'd be the weakest pickup weapon overall.

[Unshapenbook]

Seems like a legitimate idea. I'd be willing to try it out. Besides, why ditch a starting weapon that has already been introduced? (Referring to the SO and Retro) Nerf it if needed. I love the idea you have behind the SO.

[TH3 ZomBifiieD]

TH3 ZomBifiieD -- you be outputting 360/432[AR] damage in 4 shots. Players health is 600. So you'd just need 3/2[AR] more bullets. So you're downing in a second and a half.

Changed up my Retro idea.
Making the AR 10%. Overall it doesn't change the power of the gun. The only time the difference could be seen is on unharmed targets. If they have ANY damage - the shots needed to down match what they presently are (minus long as my original idea nerfed it anyways).
This idea greatly balances the gun even more.

Thanks for the math rundown. The potential of this gun when compared to all others is pretty imbalanced. Even though i barely ever hit peak feathering efficiency, because it has the chance to screw up your bloom if you are off by a milisecond. Downing at pretty much any range in 2-3 seconds doesn't sit well with me, even in gears 3 where by design dying is supposed to be very fast.

BTW THAT 4 bullets in 1.06 SECONDS "Feathered" WAS ONLY POSSIBLE WITH ACTIVE SHOTS, just so i don't misinform people.

I just very much hope Epic can deter feathering altogether, or else nerf the gun back down to Acceptable levels. I Like your idea's Lambent, for the Retro but i also think there should probably be more falloff damage... 85% DAMAGE AT MIDRANGE, and 75% DAMAGE AT LONGER RANGES. (approx values) something like 7/8 shots to down at longrange and 6/7 to down at midrange.

(All based on assuming the Retro Lancer doesn't change from it's current design concept)

Seeing how the Retro Lancer no matter what is done with it will likely be the best choice for short range and CQC anyway, i'm beginning to think it should be disadvantaged against the other rifles at all other ranges. Especially when you consider that such a large portion of Gears Of War MP is fought at those ranges (CQC, AND SHORTRANGE)

Just some thoughts, do you agree that the Retro "for balance sake" should be disadvantaged somewhat at mid and longrange? Or am i overstepping my bounds?

[LambentHammerburst]

I just very much hope Epic can deter feathering altogether, or else nerf the gun back down to Acceptable. Like your idea's Lambent for the Retro but i also think there should probably be 85% DAMAGE AT MIDRANGE, and 75% DAMAGE AT LONGER RANGES. (approx values)

Seeing how the Retro Lancer no matter what is done with it will likely be the best choice for short range and CQC anyway, i'm beginning to think it should be disadvantaged against the other rifles at all other ranges. Especially when you consider that such a large portion of Gears Of War MP is fought at those ranges (CQC, AND SHORTRANGE)

Just some thoughts, do you agree that the Retro "for balance sake" should be disadvantaged somewhat at mid and longrange? Or am i overstepping my bounds?

It was 75% at launch and it was pretty weak. It being 9/8[AR] shots to down. Due to the feathering - this made it completely useless at long imo.
So with my idea of 10% AR it would make it 9 shots both AR or not. However it gets that same treatment. If they have ANY damage - it'd be a 8 shot down.
Still very high.

I agree a mid-range reduction could be fine. However I left it as mid range I find the guns equal as they are. The Retro only really dominates at mid-range when it's AR'd -- which in my idea I've nerfed. I tried the 90% and 95% and both resulted in it becoming a 8 shot down at medium range (7 with active) in which makes it equal to using it at long. Issue with the 90 base damage is the % jumps are so high.
I even tried 97.5% and as a result of that AR or not it was a 7 shot down.
I think medium range is fine at 1.0 as it is still less than melee/short range as those have 1.2/1.13 modifiers. So it still emulates fall off damage.
Goes from 120%/113%/100%/85%

[TH3 ZomBifiieD]

It was 75% at launch and it was pretty weak. It being 9/8[AR] shots to down. Due to the feathering - this made it completely useless at long imo.
So with my idea of 10% AR it would make it 9 shots both AR or not. However it gets that same treatment. If they have ANY damage - it'd be a 8 shot down.
Still very high.

I agree a mid-range reduction could be fine. However I left it as mid range I find the guns equal as they are. The Retro only really dominates at mid-range when it's AR'd -- which in my idea I've nerfed. I tried the 90% and 95% and both resulted in it becoming a 8 shot down at medium range (7 with active) in which makes it equal to using it at long. Issue with the 90 base damage is the % jumps are so high.
I even tried 97.5% and as a result of that AR or not it was a 7 shot down.
I think medium range is fine at 1.0 as it is still less than melee/short range as those have 1.2/1.13 modifiers. So it still emulates fall off damage.
Goes from 120%/113%/100%/85%

Hmm i see, but i still think the chances of EPIC making the AR 10% is very unlikely. But i can see that being superior to my idea when i think about it. the Whole "Feathering" mechanic, just has me wishing for the Retro to have more falloff damage is all.

Without the 10% AR decrease you propose... 113%/100%/85%/75% would be my ideal. The thing still dominates in CQC and Short, which i think warrants something like this.

[LambentHammerburst]

Could happen as they have adjusted the AR bonus' on other guns from the default of 20%.

The Boltok - has no damage boost with AR. It just gets double rate of fire.
Hammerburst gets 5% AR damage bonus.
Lancer gets 30% AR damage bonus.
Longshot gets 10% AR damage bonus.
Boomshot gets 15% AR damage bonus.

[the_suicide_fox]

Retro should become a burst fire weapon, something similar to the original Hammerburst. The damage should be dropped (something like 10 shots to down, maybe 12) and stopping power upped significantly, with a larger clip size and reduced recoil if necessary. IIRC old HB was 6-shot burst, so it would be 2 full bursts to down. Players would be forced into CQC because ranged combat would be too difficult due to bursts and recoil, though they can still provide support. The stopping power INCREASE coupled with burst fire turns this into a weapon that is difficult to push but easy to get around. Think of it this way. Even though it will almost stop you dead in your tracks, you can simple wait for the burst to finish, then make your move. Even if you get hit and can't move at all, you can still easily escape inbetween bursts. It would be more focused for CQC like this without being too strong. IMO giving it high damage to compete with Gnasher in CQC doesn't make make the Retro it's own thing. It feels like a second shotgun that has better teamfire abilities and worse point blank potential than like a CQC rifle. Like I have said, I don't see the balance in Gears 3 as a problem, just that Lancer, Gnasher, and HB all feel different and unique, but Retro feels like a clone of the others.

HB should have a higher damage than it does now considering it must be 3-shot burst fired. That means it's harder to use up close as the damage isn't persistant like the Lancer, so it focuses it to long range without changing the modifications. It should be 8 shot down across the board, which is 2 bursts plus 2 bullets, or 2 very accurate 4-shot bursts (in those dire situations).


Lancer and Gnasher sound like they will be balanced well.

Sawed Off should have a long reload still, but move the PAR up to like 1/3 the way and make it a LOT harder to hit. SO players would then be able to keep up in close range but have to keep hitting difficult reloads over and over really fast. Also, when a shot connects the range should increase a bit so as to increase the chance of a multi-kill. Only on a hit, meaning 1 person has to be in range when it goes off. It feels like that never happens now, but I don't think it should have it's old range back. This would bring that feeling back without going OP.

[LambentHammerburst]

I never said bringing back the SO old range.
I'm talking about taking how it is NOW and removing some more spread. Then the AR gives back what was removed.
Not AR = Old spread

[SiMBiiOTE]

They should move the Gnasher A/R to end of the bar. Also make the spread random until you get an A/R.

Shortening the range is just common sense as well.

[LambentHammerburst]

They should move the Gnasher A/R to end of the bar. Also make the spread random until you get an A/R.

Shortening the range is just common sense as well.

ARing is tied to where the reload is. So make the Gnasher take forever to reload -- yet in my ideas I'm giving the SO a faster reload and the Retro a easier AR to hit (or slightly quicker reload)? Yeah makes perfect sense.....

[LordOfDeath]

The Hammerburst has been completely redesigned. They made it so after 3 shots the recoil is insane. It's also been displayed it can pop heads. So expect the Hammerburst to deal more damage per shot and have a head shot multiplier.


Read my OP. The changes I suggest make it significantly more balanced. It as a pickup weapon is kinda pointless as it isn't powerful enough to be one really. It'd need a buff to justify making it a pickup. Yes it's powerful and OP for a starting gun - however it's not OP enough to make a pickup. If you get what I mean. It'd be the weakest pickup weapon overall.

In hands less talent retro user, yes it would be weakest pick-up weapon. But in hands of good user it looses only to longshot,boomshot and torque bow in terms of pick-up weapon power.

I have read your OP,i was just saying my thoughts about them. HB did look excatly same in GOWJ as it was in Gears3/2 in overrun video. But in that video what i saw about it showed only 2sec of hammerburst in action so i didnt knew better.

[Carnagd]

The community is split on the weapons. People say no Sawed-Off others are saying keep it. No Retro - keep it. Remove SP, remove this blah blah blah.
Epic will do what they feel is best.
The views here are just how I feel weapons should be provided they return.

Sawed-Off
Presently this is overall the weakest gun in the game. Yes it's godlike in that one range - except that's it - It's good only at one range with a long a** reload time. Because of this the gun has become overall a camping weapon and if it doesn't kill they swing it around like some retarded lightsaber.

How I feel it would be better.
Base it off the Zeta Sawed-Off with the faster reload.
However decrease the radius 20 or 30 degrees (10/15 on each side)
AR bonus would be a zero increase in damage. However upon AR'ing you get that lost radius back.
Decrease the melee range or melee damage.
Optional: Add a "hurt only" range to the gun. Slightly increase the range of the gun, but not the gib range. So if I stand 2 feet outside it's gib range - I'd get some damage. Something like 50-100 would be fine. It'd hurt except it's 1/12th or 1/6th your health. So it wouldn't be OP or game breaking. AR bonus would NOT increase this damage. It'd just add minor damage. Would only matter if the target was going to go down in a single shot anyways. It'd be like the SO users "FU!!!!!" before you kill him for missing his shot.

End result - the Sawed-Off would greatly reward players who stick around in a gun fight. Running away would be stupid because of the quicker reload speed. It would reward you dodging around or simply chasing your target. Due to the lower radius it'd require more aim. With the lower melee damage or melee range firing the gun and meleeing would be the dumbest thing you could ever do. You'd have to get point blank or melee them 3 times (pistol melee damage).

Retro
Honestly it's overall fine.
What it needs is weaker long range damage. I've said 85% would be ideal. Another part I feel would be good is simply adding a slight stun to the user on a failed charge. Less than the target still but not by much. A charge needs to be a risk - just like how the Chainsaw is. You rev your chainsaw - you end up walking slow and pretty much any damage cancels out your rev.
Adding a slight stun to the user would give the one stunned more of a chance to punish the fail - however since the users stun is still less he's still granted a slight upper hand. It'd just make the Retro use require being more quick and shoot his target as Meleeing would take too long.
I wouldn't mind seeing a very minor recoil increase per shot either. Something like 3% recoil increase per shot. This means the recoil would be:
190, 196, 201, 207, 214, 220, 227 (just past retail recoil) ect
This would be relatively minor. However it would just make full auto a little harder to counter.

[Addition - As of June 19th]
Make the Retro's AR 10% instead of the 20.
This is overall minor. However does make it significantly weaker against unhurt targets.
At melee range:
118.8[AR] damage -> 6 shot down -> 594 damage
This makes it 1 shot more to down. However this ONLY is if they have ZEROdamage. A players health is 600. So if they took a snub pistol shot to their pinky toe from across the map - they'd go down in 5 shots. This change only effects unharmed targets.

At close range:
111.87[AR] damage -> 6 shot down
Again this is the same concept as above. 5 shots would deal 559.35 damage. This means just 1 bullet from a non-active Lancer from across the map would make it a 5 shot down again.
Presently it's a 5 shot down AR. Again this change only effects unharmed targets.

Medium:
99[AR] damage -> 7 shot down (just barely) -> 693 damage (6 shots = 594 damage)
It's presently also a 6 shot down with AR. However as you can clearly see again this change ONLY effects undamaged targets. If they have **ANY** damage - it's a 6 shot down like it is now.

Long:
This is using my 85% damage reduction. Without it - it'd match up with my Medium as presently both are 100% damage.

84.5[AR] -> 8 shots -> 676 damage
This does follow suit with the others again. 7 shots would deal 591.5 damage. Meaning yet again if they have ANY damage it'd be 7 shots.

So all in all - the AR bonus is still very valid and doesn't change the shots needed to down the target overall. The only time it'd take 1 bullet more is when they are undamaged. Any damage to them makes it require 1 less bullet.

Now this has been all nerf, nerf, nerf.
2 "buffs":
Make the Rate of Fire be 550 from 500. Now before anyone calls foul on this. This simply makes it fire 9.16~ shots a second from 8.3~. One bullet more a second. This is the standard Lancer RoF. Not a significant change. Also it's a double edged sword. Higher rate of fire = More damage output but also recoil kicks in much faster and is harder to control.
Make the reload quicker or make the AR sweet spot a bit earlier. Why? I nerfed the AR significantly so it should be slightly easier to get.


Hammerburst
I heard it's first 3 shots with low recoil and after that it's insane.
I like this idea. Would however also like them to try a increased recoil per shot.
Meaning make base recoil something like 15. Then each shot gives 60% increased recoil.
So it'd go: 15, 24, 38, 61, 98, 157, 251 (this is more than the Launch Retro recoil), ect
Think this could work very nicely as a alternative idea to 3 shots then insane recoil.
60% is just a idea. Could be 70 too:
15, 26, 43, 73, 125
70 would give off the same effect overall as after the 4th shot it's very significant recoil.
This would just make it benefit those who can counter the recoil by letting them get off that 4th shot.

Lancer
Hybrid of one we have and Zeta version. Make the RoF the half way point between these 2.
Reduce SP greatly though.
This would make going full auto on the Lancer for a long time be a bad idea as the bloom would quickly kick in resulting in missed shots. It would reward accurate players better. Presently I find the Lancer overall too weak. The only reason it is strong is because of SP. Reduce it significantly while buffing the RoF. This would reward accurate players while also making rushing a bit more possible again.
AR bonus needs to be 1.2x instead of the 1.3x especially when considering the increase RoF.
Headshot multiplier needs a HUGE nerf too. It's presently 1.5x - make it 1.1x tops.

Gnasher
Give it 10/5% Medium/Long range damage TOPS. I'd much prefer to see 5/0% however that would make the "elitists" cry foul to no end.
This would make it impossible to down a player at medium range if he's undamaged. It however would hurt him like hell still.
It would simply make the Gnasher suppress instead of down. If you get a down this modifier would still allow you to kill him.
This would also still allow you to finish off a guy who took heavy damage.
So all in all this removes the Gnashers ability to effectively down/kill from absurd ranges while still maintaining the ability to hurt a target somewhat nicely. It'd basically be like firing a Lancer at long range in terms of damage per shot.
Another change would be to reduce the time a AR bonus sticks. It lingers around WAY too long. You can pre-active on Drydock and the AR is just wearing off as you're running up the steps. That's way too damn long. I feel 3-5 seconds for it would be ideal. This would make AR'ing at the right time much more significant. It'd have players leaving a few shots less in their Gnasher at most times. Then if they get the ability to rush/flank - they'd AR and get that massive bonus.
This would make AR'ing tactical and not a simple "I win" method.

I agree with pretty much every point except the one about the lancer, the lancer is not the godly gun even at the moment, it needs SP( maybe a bit of a decrease would be necessary)because of bullet lag where you wont even be able to hit them.

[LambentHammerburst]

I agree with pretty much every point except the one about the lancer, the lancer is not the godly gun even at the moment, it needs SP( maybe a bit of a decrease would be necessary)because of bullet lag where you wont even be able to hit them.

Presently it does need SP - correct.
That is why I suggested a higher rate of fire. Means it outputs more damage quicker while having SP weaker.
Half way between Zeta and GoW3 RoF would be 13 shots.
It's 10 right now.
So in melee range:
929.5/1115.4[AR] (using 1.2x instead of 3) vs GoW3's 715/929.5[AR]
Short/Medium range:
715/858[AR] (1.2x) vs GoW3's 550/715[AR]
Long Range:
572/686.4[AR] (1.2x) vs GoW3's 440/572[AR]

As you can see the extra 3 shots a second makes its damage output per second match a active reloaded Lancer today. Yes fires more shots a second but its damage output per second is equal to a AR'd GoW3 Lancer. Why it would not need SP or just reduced SP. Especially if they AR this.

[RoboSeal1]

Disagree with the Lancer. I feel the Zeta version would be ideal. Especially considering that the early versions of Overrun were without SP. I agree with almost everything else. I personally think the Zeta SO is perfect as it is.

Whats the difference on zeta lancer? Imo it feels stronger maybe bcuz no one ever plays and im stuck with bots super aim

[LambentHammerburst]

Whats the difference on zeta lancer? Imo it feels stronger maybe bcuz no one ever plays and im stuck with bots super aim

Higher rate of fire. I think Quinn made it equal or close to the GoW1 rate of fire (850 vs G3's 550)
Other changes are the usual Zeta changes (no SP, lower AR bonus ect)

[LambentHammerburst]

In hands less talent retro user, yes it would be weakest pick-up weapon. But in hands of good user it looses only to longshot,boomshot and torque bow in terms of pick-up weapon power.

I have read your OP,i was just saying my thoughts about them. HB did look excatly same in GOWJ as it was in Gears3/2 in overrun video. But in that video what i saw about it showed only 2sec of hammerburst in action so i didnt knew better.

HB appeared the same yes. However those who played it reported that it's a weapon where you can only fire it in bursts or single fire. If you try and spam the trigger like you do now you will be shooting the sky pretty damn quick.
So why I didn't address the Hammerburst in a huge way. Simply because they seemed to of redesigned it entirely and sounds like it will be significantly balanced as it is.
3 shots, any more = insane recoil.
Can pop heads (could be Overrun only)

They made it a precision weapon like it should of from the start.
I hope it deals equal damage at all range due to the high recoil and gets its headshot multiplier.

[LambentHammerburst]

Lancer adjustment updated to explain in more detail.

[xTZAx]

Great job, OP. This is how suggestion threads should be made. It's such a shame that your intelligent and well-thought-out post was followed with ludicrous statements like 'They should just remove this gun because I don't like it.'

[LambentHammerburst]

Great job, OP. This is how suggestion threads should be made. It's such a shame that your intelligent and well-thought-out post was followed with ludicrous statements like 'They should just remove this gun because I don't like it.'

Sadly its a common mentality. People just want devolution. The game has been expanded so much and they want to things to just go back to GoW1 with updated features really.
Retro as a loadout weapon - Can be fine. It just needs tweaking.
SO as a loadout weapon - Can be fine. It just needs tweaking.

People just act like things cannot be tweaked or adjusted.
Like the GoW1 Lancer is 100% different overall than the GoW3 Lancer. It has been heavily tweaked since its first appearance but maintains the same same function. Retro/SO can get same treatment.

[SQuirrel147]

Great job, OP. This is how suggestion threads should be made. It's such a shame that your intelligent and well-thought-out post was followed with ludicrous statements like 'They should just remove this gun because I don't like it.'

Just because I say I want it removed doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Just giving my opinion.

Sadly its a common mentality. People just want devolution. The game has been expanded so much and they want to things to just go back to GoW1 with updated features really.
Retro as a loadout weapon - Can be fine. It just needs tweaking.
SO as a loadout weapon - Can be fine. It just needs tweaking.

People just act like things cannot be tweaked or adjusted.
Like the GoW1 Lancer is 100% different overall than the GoW3 Lancer. It has been heavily tweaked since its first appearance but maintains the same same function. Retro/SO can get same treatment.

Pretty sure people complained about the Gears 2 Lancer as well. I did. Just because it has been changed, doesn't mean people complained about it.

[LambentHammerburst]

Pretty sure people complained about the Gears 2 Lancer as well. I did. Just because it has been changed, doesn't mean people complained about it.

Any change people complain about. Even if the change was good - people will complain.
I was just using the Lancer as a example of how a weapon can be tweaked quite a bit while keeping it still like how it was originally. GoW3 Lancer is nothing like the GoW1 Lancer - yet it's still feels like the Lancer. Still functions like it too.
It was just heavily modified to adjust the balance.

Saying Retro/SO can go through the exact same process. They can be heavily modified to adjust balance without completely changing the gun either.

[SQuirrel147]

Any change people complain about. Even if the change was good - people will complain.
I was just using the Lancer as a example of how a weapon can be tweaked quite a bit while keeping it still like how it was originally. GoW3 Lancer is nothing like the GoW1 Lancer - yet it's still feels like the Lancer. Still functions like it too.
It was just heavily modified to adjust the balance.

Saying Retro/SO can go through the exact same process. They can be heavily modified to adjust balance without completely changing the gun either.

That's also something I want to touch on.

There is more then one way to balance a game. The hard part is fining which balancing is the most fun to play with. The DBS is the perfect example of this. It's perfectly balanced, but it is not fun to fight. Also making sure the game is competitive is important. I just feel like people overlook this sometimes. Because honestly, is the Retro fun to fight? Is an over-ranged Gnasher fun to fight? I understand balancing with this in mind is extremely hard, and differs from person to person. But still a fact to look at.

[Doctor Pie 7056]

That's also something I want to touch on.

There is more then one way to balance a game. The hard part is fining which balancing is the most fun to play with. The DBS is the perfect example of this. It's perfectly balanced, but it is not fun to fight. Also making sure the game is competitive is important. I just feel like people overlook this sometimes. Because honestly, is the Retro fun to fight? Is an over-ranged Gnasher fun to fight? I understand balancing with this in mind is extremely hard, and differs from person to person. But still a fact to look at.

I agree with this 100% can people really agree on everything no that how it works I like to lancer more than gnasher dual but the other guy like to gnasher over rifles you can't please everyone

[LambentHammerburst]

I agree with this 100% can people really agree on everything no that how it works I like to lancer more than gnasher dual but the other guy like to gnasher over rifles you can't please everyone

Agreed. You have to try and find that middle ground.
However even that will anger some on both sides as they will call foul on change/slight nerf on their favorite weapon due to being biased towards their gun.

This is why I 100% support a HUGE nerf on stopping power or even full removal. This was the biggest issue for the Shotgun users.
However removing SP does make the rifles significantly weaker. That's really what made rifles so damn powerful. I can use Zeta as a example. At medium range I could SLAUGHTER rushers with my Retro in all gametypes - simply because of the SP. I stopped them dead in their tracks. In Zeta they ran right through it and I had to make my shots count more. I honestly was breaking even overall in Zeta with the Retro. However part of that was due to the nerf in close range.
So remove SP - use the Retro as I stated. Still a power house however if you're full health you can rush him with a Shotgun and stand a VERY good chance. If you go in slightly damaged - he is given upper hand.
Lancer is only OP because of the SP. Why I suggested the higher RoF. However I nerfed the AR bonus by 10% and greatly reduced the HS multiplier (as it was insane).
It's the closest way I think you can find that middle ground. You have to keep both powerful while still weakening them too.
So you have to nerf one aspect of a weapon to make the opposite style gun more powerful (remove SP to make Shotguns more powerful in rushes against Rifles) but have to find a equal buff to replace it (increasing the RoF on the Lancer but making the bloom larger resulting in it being less accurate).