PDA

View Full Version : Weapon removal, weapon specific playlists etc.



IDeadWork
09-14-2011, 04:42 PM
Over the course of the beta and up until the release of this game (and I'm sure during the course of the game itself) a lot of weapon removal playlist ideas, or weapon specific playlist ideas have been quite popular in the community. Old school playlist, shotgun only, pistol only, remove the DBS/retro etc.

The main thing I think a lot of people don't realize is the intriquet system of balance through out a game with all weapons considered; distance from different ranges, effectiveness from a variety of Shots etc.

all weapons are tweaked according to one another, and To remove a weapon or have weapon specific playlists unbalances the game dramatically.

Regardless some ppl think it would be "fun" to play home they want.

The problem? It can't be ranked. Any playlist that is unbalanced is like having a mutator. It changes the game to a way it wasn't intended on being played...therefore IF these playlists are made they SHOULD BE social.

ZackH26
09-14-2011, 05:12 PM
Weapon-specific playlists would be fine if you actually respawned with the weapon instead of the standard weapons (Torque Bow Tag BETA).

Everyone would be given the same exact tool of destruction - this is as close as you can get to balance...

Weapon-specific playlists COULD be Ranked because they would still be highly competitive, but Public playlists would still make the fans happy.

IDeadWork
09-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Weapon-specific playlists would be fine if you actually respawned with the weapon instead of the standard weapons.

Everyone would be given the same exact tool of destruction - this is as close as you can get to balance...

Weapon-specific playlists COULD be Ranked because they would still be highly competitive, but Public playlists would still make the fans happy.

If they were ranked. They would have to have a COMPLETELY SEPERATE LEADERBOARD. agree?

For example...an "oldschool playlist" shouldnt be the same as the regular execution Leaderboard it should be and ENTIRELY different Leaderboard also.

ZanKioH
09-14-2011, 05:19 PM
Hammer of dawn playlist.

That's where you'll find me. So sick with that weapon <'3

If only the playlist existed however :/

TheJamsh
09-14-2011, 05:25 PM
There shouldn't be playlists. Just use mutators instead. Far easier, and less bollocks getting in the way.

DoIlookLocustToU
09-14-2011, 05:47 PM
There shouldn't be playlists. Just use mutators instead. Far easier, and less bollocks getting in the way.

you still think mutators work in ranked and public multiplayer?? your an avid reader of these forums... mutators are for Arcade/Campaign. the rest of the modes will just have "special events" like they had Torque Tag in the beta and it was great


I would love a Hammer of Dawn special weekend event... but a Snipers and Boltoks only playlist would be amazing.

Shweatypalms x
09-14-2011, 05:49 PM
To remove a weapon or have weapon specific playlists unbalances the game dramatically.

I wouldn't go that far.

Evil Attempts
09-14-2011, 06:45 PM
Hammer of dawn playlist.

That's where you'll find me. So sick with that weapon <'3

If only the playlist existed however :/


So you are telling me that you can actually get kills with a giant beam of death from space?

IDeadWork
09-14-2011, 07:01 PM
I wouldn't go that far.

How wouldn't you go that far? Years of testing of different weapons against eachother are put into the balance...simply just REMOVING something or ADDING something alters the balance absolutely.

If Weapon (A) was not considered; weapons (B) & (C) might had been tweaked differently. That's what balance is bro. You cannot add or remove weapons with out re distributing balance equally throughout the mechanics/usage etc of each weapon.

Afro Zombie
09-14-2011, 08:47 PM
I wouldn't go that far.

If you want a play list that removes the weapons, play another Gears of War game. Cliffy B. said it, Rod said it, and quite frankly we don't want the game to be changed in a way that you like: the people want the game to play the way they like. If the majority of the people that play Gears of War 3 wanted a play list like this (by majority I mean the numbers from several million people that will be playing the game) then it would be different. But I don't see this kind of change happening.

CharlieSpleen
09-14-2011, 09:05 PM
Retro charge only playlist is what we need. I hate the retro charge, but I'd imagine it would be quite hilarious to see everyone charging at each other.

The other one was flamethrower only playlist. And it would be a huge clusterflock of flamethrowers. lol

Mr shWo
09-14-2011, 09:37 PM
depends on the settings, are you implying that ranked settings are more balanced then competitive settings cause if so just stop

Ghostofdelta2
09-15-2011, 12:11 AM
For one of the first times ever I completely agree with you.

Ranked should be serious and social should be social.

By the same token events for Horde/beast should disable the leaderboards.

vVv Sun Down
09-15-2011, 01:06 AM
I'd love to see a no heavy weapons playlist! In my experience not a lot of people ended up grabbing the mortar/mulcher in GoW2 anyway and they usually just took up a weapon spawn. The one shot looks sexy and could be fun to use but I feel like they just slow down gameplay a little bit. I love the idea though.

Nonoru
09-15-2011, 01:32 AM
all weapons are tweaked according to one another, and To remove a weapon or have weapon specific playlists unbalances the game dramatically.



Not if everyone spawns with the same loadout. A Lancer is able to counter a lancer for example.A sawed off can counter another sawed off.Etc...

IDeadWork
09-15-2011, 03:56 AM
depends on the settings, are you implying that ranked settings are more balanced then competitive settings cause if so just stop

Competitive settings arent always balanced bro...been playing competitively for awhile. The GB/MLG community often listens to idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. In early (TU2 I think) lancers were BANNED in competitive play ... BANNED you could only use hammerburst. Then they changed it...but alot of the swaps and removal even in competitive play are stupid...often leading to more imbalance then the balance they were trying to fix.

They need to start taking game designers word for certain things when it comes to maps and layouts and weapon spawns. If something REALLY doesn't make sense then fine. Other then that...let the game breathe.

Drone *
09-15-2011, 08:00 AM
I don't think player's starting inventories can be controlled server-side. It depends if they've moved them from UnrealScript to the .ini configurations (Which can be controlled server-side).

eAnGeL
09-15-2011, 11:06 AM
Hammer of dawn playlist.

That's where you'll find me. So sick with that weapon <'3

If only the playlist existed however :/

*stands under a rooftop with some overhead so splash can't kill* man I'm unstoppable!

Lancerdown
09-15-2011, 11:16 AM
An all sniper playlist would be fun. We could have the max amount of sniper ammo for each gun, no shotguns at all, but each person has a boltok with infinite ammo.

IThePharmacistI
09-15-2011, 01:01 PM
I have been talking about an old school playlist since the beta... you are looking at a DBS hater right here. :p
I think an old school playlist would be sick it would actually show skill (to a degree). I am almost 100% sure DBS and retro will not be in major team based tourney's... MLG, WCG, GGL, etc.
In saying this it will be a great warm up playlist for sure.:D

RoboSeal1
09-15-2011, 01:07 PM
Seems like the vulcan cannon is only in azura, wonder why

Shweatypalms x
09-15-2011, 01:43 PM
How wouldn't you go that far? Years of testing of different weapons against eachother are put into the balance...simply just REMOVING something or ADDING something alters the balance absolutely.

If Weapon (A) was not considered; weapons (B) & (C) might had been tweaked differently. That's what balance is bro. You cannot add or remove weapons with out re distributing balance equally throughout the mechanics/usage etc of each weapon.

Because removing 1 weapon can't completely unbalance a game. I mean, if you remove the mortar, for example, there are plenty of weapons that can fill that void and probably would actually make the game flow a little better.


If you want a play list that removes the weapons, play another Gears of War game. Cliffy B. said it, Rod said it, and quite frankly we don't want the game to be changed in a way that you like: the people want the game to play the way they like. If the majority of the people that play Gears of War 3 wanted a play list like this (by majority I mean the numbers from several million people that will be playing the game) then it would be different. But I don't see this kind of change happening.

Quite frankly I think the people did, for the most part, want the game changed to the way I wanted after having played the beta and even after seeing the tweaks they made post beta(tweaks to both weapons and maps). It doesn't matter either way because I'm simply commenting on the fact that adding or removing pretty much any one weapon in the game other than the shotgun wouldn't unbalance the game.


Competitive settings arent always balanced bro...been playing competitively for awhile. The GB/MLG community often listens to idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. In early (TU2 I think) lancers were BANNED in competitive play ... BANNED you could only use hammerburst. Then they changed it...but alot of the swaps and removal even in competitive play are stupid...often leading to more imbalance then the balance they were trying to fix.

They need to start taking game designers word for certain things when it comes to maps and layouts and weapon spawns. If something REALLY doesn't make sense then fine. Other then that...let the game breathe.

The lancer ban was mostly due to the ridiculous vacuum chainsaw. Other than that, they tried to leave the swaps mostly the same and it failed partially because of game itself and partially because the hammerburst was overpowered. The actual swaps themselves got changed because some maps weren't functioning well. You also can't have frags or boltok on both sides of the maps as things get too campy. I mean if you want to make fun of the gb swaps then sure, they're awful because for the most part they are still swaps from meadowlands which are mostly default but you cannot sit there and say that pavilion or avalanche are better are on default swaps than on mlg swaps.

Anyways all I'm saying is don't sit here and hate on people for either wanting different/better swaps, wanting weapon specific playlists or wanting "old-school-esque" playlists. I mean hell, if it was up to me, the maps would have different swaps depending on each gametype, and almost none of them would have heavy weapons.

Ms Kazehana
09-15-2011, 01:54 PM
Because removing 1 weapon can't completely unbalance a game. I mean, if you remove the mortar, for example, there are plenty of weapons that can fill that void and probably would actually make the game flow a little better.



Quite frankly I think the people did, for the most part, want the game changed to the way I wanted after having played the beta and even after seeing the tweaks they made post beta(tweaks to both weapons and maps). It doesn't matter either way because I'm simply commenting on the fact that adding or removing pretty much any one weapon in the game other than the shotgun wouldn't unbalance the game.



The lancer ban was mostly due to the ridiculous vacuum chainsaw. Other than that, they tried to leave the swaps mostly the same and it failed partially because of game itself and partially because the hammerburst was overpowered. The actual swaps themselves got changed because some maps weren't functioning well. You also can't have frags or boltok on both sides of the maps as things get too campy. I mean if you want to make fun of the gb swaps then sure, they're awful because for the most part they are still swaps from meadowlands which are mostly default but you cannot sit there and say that pavilion or avalanche are better are on default swaps than on mlg swaps.

Anyways all I'm saying is don't sit here and hate on people for either wanting different/better swaps, wanting weapon specific playlists or wanting "old-school-esque" playlists. I mean hell, if it was up to me, the maps would have different swaps depending on each gametype, and almost none of them would have heavy weapons.

I don't detect any hate from the OP. He's simply explaining why having 'certain weapon only' playlists wouldn't work out well.

Shweatypalms x
09-15-2011, 03:36 PM
I don't detect any hate from the OP. He's simply explaining why having 'certain weapon only' playlists wouldn't work out well.

I'm just saying hate in general and he's talking about both weapon specific and weapon restricted/swaped playlists.

Personally I don't buy into this notion that the weapon balance hangs in the thread of having every weapon available and default swaps. In fact I don't think balance is found that way at all.

OverKill
09-15-2011, 05:01 PM
Personally I don't buy into this notion that the weapon balance hangs in the thread of having every weapon available and default swaps. In fact I don't think balance is found that way at all.

neither do i

i would also argue that everyone having the same 2-weapon loadout is much more balanced than having five to choose from (with reference to the Old School/MLG playlist idea)

EPIC also said they can tweak weapon swaps much easier in Gears 3, so that is good news if something needs addressing

IDeadWork
09-15-2011, 05:01 PM
@sweatypalms I plan on playing GB hard with this game, I'll deal with any swaps they make, I just think that they listen to the wrong feedback often. A lot of ppl don't like things because they have counter issues with it...they stamp it with "untactical" band together...then things are removed or changed.

Sometimes I think it's better to deal with it. If something challenges a player the first thing they want to do is take it out...

DBS is a perfect example of this. Although the gun has less range and ammo and longer reload then the Gnasher...ppl just stamp it with "overpowered" ... In comparison to what? And if in fact the weapon is "easy to use" then surely it takes SERIOUS tactics to counter it? So why then would anyone want it removed or altered?

I think ppl should play the game how it was created...even MLG/GB and stop trying to "play god" with the map layouts and weapon spawns. I don't think any MLG/gb rep would do a better job with swapping weapons then the epic team that took ALOT more tender love and care into the game then anyone else... If they swap things fine...I understand where your coming from with avalanche... Putting a torqe as the focus...but a lot of things are overkill IMO.

Undead Paradox
09-15-2011, 10:16 PM
Your thoughts are very agreeable. Not a lot of people put much thought into this sort of thing. Usually it's only "aggh i dont like this weapn so it shud be gone epic do something!"
Maybe this will open an eye or two.

LigHt116
09-16-2011, 05:44 AM
If everyone has the same guns then the Weapon system is balanced regardless of tweeks. Everyone has an equal chance of killing because the their starting weapons are the same.

"...and To remove a weapon or have weapon specific playlists unbalances the game dramatically."

Like removing a Boom Shield?..yeah..real dramatic.

if you removed the DBS and Retro... Players would soon adapt to the new style. Those who wont/cant will die...Go Darwin..naturally selecting the noobs

LigHt116
09-16-2011, 05:51 AM
If they were ranked. They would have to have a COMPLETELY SEPERATE LEADERBOARD. agree?

For example...an "oldschool playlist" shouldnt be the same as the regular execution Leaderboard it should be and ENTIRELY different Leaderboard also.

Why wouldnt they split up the leaderboards?...youd have a Warzone Execution TDM Wingman Old School..etc

People forget that ALL of those are playlists...Old School is just another playlist and should be treated fairly...

Agree?..:)

IDeadWork
09-17-2011, 04:47 AM
If everyone has the same guns then the Weapon system is balanced regardless of tweeks. Everyone has an equal chance of killing because the their starting weapons are the same.

An equal chance of killing is a a piece of the puzzle when it comes to balance. Weapon mechanics against other weapons is another piece...simply just REMOVING a loadout...when loadouts where tweaked against eachother as far as range, ammo, downing ability, kick...those things might be different had there not been certain weapons (eg DBS) that weren't in the game.

Removing a weapon of that much significance means you have to rebalance the other weapon mechanics against eachother again. That's the biggest reason weapon specific playlists can only be for casual fun.


"...and To remove a weapon or have weapon specific playlists unbalances the game dramatically."

Like removing a Boom Shield?..yeah..real dramatic. please don't insult my intelligence... You are going to compare something like boomshield to a discussion on the removal of loadouts and weapon specific playlists like "snipers only" ? That's a stretch


if you removed the DBS and Retro... Players would soon adapt to thenew style. Those who wont/cant will die...Go Darwin..naturally selecting the noobs

Ok you can't remove weapons that effect the gameplay so greatly without re-tweaking the remaining weapons. I talked about this above. ;)


Why wouldnt they split up the leaderboards?...youd have a Warzone Execution TDM Wingman Old School..etc

People forget that ALL of those are playlists...Old School is just another playlist and should be treated fairly...

Agree?..:)

I assume if they remove weapons for a playlist they aren't re-tweaking the remaining ones for that playlist therefore the playlist isn't balanced...that means it should be social. It can't be taken seriously .....it's for fun.

LigHt116
09-17-2011, 05:19 AM
An equal chance of killing is a a piece of the puzzle when it comes to balance. Weapon mechanics against other weapons is another piece...simply just REMOVING a loadout...when loadouts where tweaked against eachother as far as range, ammo, downing ability, kick...those things might be different had there not been certain weapons (eg DBS) that weren't in the game.

Removing a weapon of that much significance means you have to rebalance the other weapon mechanics against eachother again. That's the biggest reason weapon specific playlists can only be for casual fun.

please don't insult my intelligence... You are going to compare something like boomshield to a discussion on the removal of loadouts and weapon specific playlists like "snipers only" ? That's a stretch



Ok you can't remove weapons that effect the gameplay so greatly without re-tweaking the remaining weapons. I talked about this above. ;)



I assume if they remove weapons for a playlist they aren't re-tweaking the remaining ones for that playlist therefore the playlist isn't balanced...that means it should be social. It can't be taken seriously .....it's for fun.



Not trying to insult..im doubting your Balance Theory...listen...if they Balanced the Lancer to EVERY other weapon in the game...removing one of the weapons its balanced to would NOT unbalance its tweeks to the other weapons..it would simply have a Vain Tweek...but it would still be Balanced to the DBS Gnasher Retro..etc...so the Match would still be Balanced...

You get me?...im sorry you took my sarcasm as an insult...no harm meant.

LigHt116
09-17-2011, 06:12 AM
The Balance Theory (Deuctive)

1. All weapons are Balanced to one another. < Not Proven

2.To remove a weapon would alter the Balance with ALL Weapons. <This Premise is not factual.

3.Therefore, unbalancing the Entire system of Weapons. <Leading to an Illogical conclusion.

This commits the Fallacy of Division. Its not clear but its in there. Here is an example of how Your Fallacy will take Effect.

All Weapons are Balanced to one another.
The Gnasher, Lancer, Sawed-Off, and Retro are Weapons.
Therefore, to remove the Lancer would alter the balance between the Retro and Sawed-Off.

This is Illogical. Clearly.

Removing the Lancer in NO WAY changes the relations between the Sawed-Off and Retro-Lancer.

The same goes for EVERY other relative property in the game.

Please reply and give a counter-argument if continue to disagree.

Fyre
09-17-2011, 06:43 AM
Torque Tag and Head Shot Derbies :)

LigHt116
09-17-2011, 09:27 PM
An equal chance of killing is a a piece of the puzzle when it comes to balance. Weapon mechanics against other weapons is another piece...simply just REMOVING a loadout...when loadouts where tweaked against eachother as far as range, ammo, downing ability, kick...those things might be different had there not been certain weapons (eg DBS) that weren't in the game.

Removing a weapon of that much significance means you have to rebalance the other weapon mechanics against eachother again. That's the biggest reason weapon specific playlists can only be for casual fun.

please don't insult my intelligence... You are going to compare something like boomshield to a discussion on the removal of loadouts and weapon specific playlists like "snipers only" ? That's a stretch



Ok you can't remove weapons that effect the gameplay so greatly without re-tweaking the remaining weapons. I talked about this above. ;)



I assume if they remove weapons for a playlist they aren't re-tweaking the remaining ones for that playlist therefore the playlist isn't balanced...that means it should be social. It can't be taken seriously .....it's for fun.

Hey DeadWorrrrk...i think you missed my reply...its above this one...im curious to how you react to your second premise(assuming its correct)..

IDeadWork
09-17-2011, 10:07 PM
1. All weapons are Balanced to one another. < Not Proven

but thats what balance is bro...a weapons range making up for anothers ammo making up for anothers power...etc etc...they all factor into eachother BALANCING the game


2.To remove a weapon would alter the Balance with ALL Weapons. <This Premise is not factual.
right, in certain cases weapons being removed wont effect the balance in many cases especially when talking about loadouts...the balance is effected absolutely...we for the most part are talking about loadouts.


3.Therefore, unbalancing the Entire system of Weapons. <Leading to an Illogical conclusion.

that’s not illogical…what is illogical is removing a weapon that was balance into a system of weapons undergoing years of testing and then simply thinking the game will play fine. That’s not logical whatsoever.




This commits the Fallacy of Division. Its not clear but its in there. Here is an example of how Your Fallacy will take Effect.

All Weapons are Balanced to one another.
The Gnasher, Lancer, Sawed-Off, and Retro are Weapons.
Therefore, to remove the Lancer would alter the balance between the Retro and Sawed-Off.

This is Illogical. Clearly. not trying to be harsh … but from what you wrote here you clearly show you do not understand what goes into balancing weapons in a video game…removing a lancer would create a gap somewhere in reference to the maybe not the sawed off and retro DIRECTLY but when looking at the whole game taking out the lancer has now made a huge change in the mid-long range category…therefore the weapons in other categories are either over or underpowered…maybe not all but somewere along the line SOMETHING will need to be changed. We are talking about LOADOUTS bro…

think of putting things on a scale...half on one side half on the other...take something away from one side and the scale becomes lopsided. thats why they call it weapon BALANCE

LigHt116
09-17-2011, 10:34 PM
but thats what balance is bro...a weapons range making up for anothers ammo making up for anothers power...etc etc...they all factor into eachother BALANCING the game


right, in certain cases weapons being removed wont effect the balance in many cases especially when talking about loadouts...the balance is effected absolutely...we for the most part are talking about loadouts.



that’s not illogical…what is illogical is removing a weapon that was balance into a system of weapons undergoing years of testing and then simply thinking the game will play fine. That’s not logical whatsoever.


not trying to be harsh … but from what you wrote here you clearly show you do not understand what goes into balancing weapons in a video game…removing a lancer would create a gap somewhere in reference to the maybe not the sawed off and retro DIRECTLY but when looking at the whole game taking out the lancer has now made a huge change in the mid-long range category…therefore the weapons in other categories are either over or underpowered…maybe not all but somewere along the line SOMETHING will need to be changed. We are talking about LOADOUTS bro…

think of putting things on a scale...half on one side half on the other...take something away from one side and the scale becomes lopsided. thats why they call it weapon BALANCE

You just agreed with a documented Fallacy?..does that not bother you?...and what weapons did i use in my example?...LOADOUTS

Not trying to be harsh either...but from what you wrote you have no idea what a Fallacy means in this case...let me give some examples on how based upon your first premise..EVERY game is unbalanced.

(In this argument, i NEED you to assume that every player picks the same weapons)

1. All weapons are Balanced to one another. < Not Proven

2. To remove a weapon would alter the Balance with ALL Weapons. <This Premise is not factual.

3. Players can only choose Three out of Five weapons from the Loadout Weapons Menu.

4. Because players can only choose Three out of Five Weapons, They Leave out TWO weapons in every game.

5. Since TWO Weapons have been left out of the game, the players CHOICE has unbalanced the Weapons system.

6. Therefore, making the game unbalanced regardless of the Playlist.


Same Argument a but with Meat.

1. The Lancer(A) has been Balanced with the Hammer(B), Retro(C), Gnasher(D), and Sawed-Off(E).

2. The Weapon B has been not been equiped throughout the ENTIRE Match.

3. Therefore, Weapon A is no longer Balanced with C, D, and E.

This is the Fallacy of Division.

If no one in the Match decides to equip the Hammerburst it DOES NOT unbalance the rest of the weapons. The Lancer will react the same to the Gnasher, Retro, and Sawed-Off whether the Hammer has been equipped by a Player or not. Your Theory has just been proven to be fallacious. If you cannot appeal to Logic how can anyone talk to you?

(Note: No harm meant)

Also..i used Loadout weapons in my last argument the whole time.

"All Weapons are Balanced to one another.
The Gnasher, Lancer, Sawed-Off, and Retro are Weapons.
Therefore, to remove the Lancer would alter the balance between the Retro and Sawed-Off."

"right, in certain cases weapons being removed wont effect the balance in many cases especially when talking about loadouts...the balance is effected absolutely...we for the most part are talking about loadouts."

I AM

IDeadWork
09-18-2011, 02:59 AM
You just agreed with a documented Fallacy?..does that not bother you?...and what weapons did i use in my example?...LOADOUTS

Not trying to be harsh either...but from what you wrote you have no idea what a Fallacy means in this case...let me give some examples on how based upon your first premise..EVERY game is unbalanced.



(In this argument, i NEED you to assume that every player picks the same weapons)

1. All weapons are Balanced to one another. < Not Proven

2. To remove a weapon would alter the Balance with ALL Weapons. <This Premise is not factual.



3. Players can only choose Three out of Five weapons from the Loadout Weapons Menu.

4. Because players can only choose Three out of Five Weapons, They Leave out TWO weapons in every game.


5. Since TWO Weapons have been left out of the game, the players CHOICE has unbalanced the Weapons system.

6. Therefore, making the game unbalanced regardless of the Playlist


Same Argument a but with Meat.

1. The Lancer(A) has been Balanced with the Hammer(B), Retro(C), Gnasher(D), and Sawed-Off(E).

2. The Weapon B has been not been equiped throughout the ENTIRE Match.

3. Therefore, Weapon A is no longer Balanced with C, D, and E.

This is the Fallacy of Division.

If no one in the Match decides to equip the Hammerburst it DOES NOT unbalance the rest of the weapons. The Lancer will react the same to the Gnasher, Retro, and Sawed-Off whether the Hammer has been equipped by a Player or not. Your Theory has just be

en proven to be fallacious. If you cannot appeal to Logic how can anyone talk to you?

(Note: No harm meant)

Also..i used Loadout weapons in my last argument the whole time.


"All Weapons are Balanced to one another.
The Gnasher, Lancer, Sawed-Off, and Retro are Weapons.
Therefore, to remove the Lancer would alter the balance between the Retro and Sawed-Off."


"right, in certain cases weapons being removed wont effect the balance in many cases especially when talking about loadouts...the balance is effected absolutely...we for the most part are talking about loadouts."

I AM


Ok what your trying to say is since everybody can choose to not pick (DBS) for arguments sake that the game is balanced without it there. Ok that's fine...that's not the point though. Interesting argument...fact of the matter is, it's an option to pick the DBS. And the DBS was FACTORED into the damage/range/ammo/ability and everything else about the Gnasher...therefore choosing the weapon or not is irrelevant ... The Gnasher plays differently then it might had the DBS not had been an option...weather it be something as big as it's power when blindfired or as small as it's ammo count ... All the weapons directly and indirectly effect eachother. I understand what your saying. But these playlists cannot be ranked, the balance is effected too much by the removal of weapons...I stand firm on that. I've had long discussions regarding it... Your not going to change my mind about it.

Removing weapons runs the great risk of unbalancing the game.

LigHt116
09-18-2011, 03:07 AM
Ok what your trying to say is since everybody can choose to not pick (DBS) for arguments sake that the game is balanced without it there. Ok that's fine...that's not the point though. Interesting argument...fact of the matter is, it's an option to pick the DBS. And the DBS was FACTORED into the damage/range/ammo/ability and everything else about the Gnasher...therefore choosing the weapon or not is irrelevant ... The Gnasher plays differently then it might had the DBS not had been an option...weather it be something as big as it's power when blindfired or as small as it's ammo count ... All the weapons directly and indirectly effect eachother. I understand what your saying. But these playlists cannot be ranked, the balance is effected too much by the removal of weapons...I stand firm on that. I've had long discussions regarding it... Your not going to change my mind about it.

Removing weapons runs the great risk of unbalancing the game.

Removing Loadout weapons will not change the Balance of the game because the players choose them...It would make the Balance relative...i see the how the Balance Theory works with strictly Power Weapons...but Loadout?...its a Logical Impossibility..i had a friend(A soon to be Logician) review your argument...it contains a Fallacy...you made me think of the importance of balance in Power Weapons(BoomShield:Oneshot Ratio)..thanks...but your Balanced Loadout Theory?...Its Fallacious and completely false with all due respect...im not trying to change your mind...your mind is set in its ways...im Logically convincing the readers of your Thread that The Balance Theory doesnt apply to Loadout. :)


Edit:You forget that the Gnasher had every other weapon FACTORED into it also....meaning it will do fine if it never encounters the DBS...get me?

IDeadWork
09-18-2011, 03:49 PM
Removing Loadout weapons will not change the Balance of the game because the players choose them...It would make the Balance relative...i see the how the Balance Theory works with strictly Power Weapons...but Loadout?...its a Logical Impossibility..i had a friend(A soon to be Logician) review your argument...it contains a Fallacy...you made me think of the importance of balance in Power Weapons(BoomShield:Oneshot Ratio)..thanks...but your Balanced Loadout Theory?...Its Fallacious and completely false with all due respect...im not trying to change your mind...your mind is set in its ways...im Logically convincing the readers of your Thread that The Balance Theory doesnt apply to Loadout. :)


Edit:You forget that the Gnasher had every other weapon FACTORED into it also....meaning it will do fine if it never encounters the DBS...get me?

dude...you keep bringing up logic, put that aside for a sec then come back to it...what im saying was how the game was created. look into weapon balance and gears of war a little more. Power weapons or pickups are very different, they are balanced by map location and scarcety on the map. loadouts are balanced MUCH FINER and have a much more intriquet balance to them...they have to be tested against eachother and tweaked until they are perfect (or until what the devs feel are perfect) this is the facts.

now for the logic. if you are testing each weapon against eachother (which you have heard Joe Graf and other devs mention about balancing the loadout weapons) then LOGICALLY you can make the assesment that REMOVING A LOADOUT WEAPON WOULD EFFECT THE BALANCE.

i used the example of a scale with two sides...put all the weapons on the scale on each side, then remove one of those weapons and you have balance issues...

now your argument about "some people might not use certain weapons therefore balance isnt effected" was a valid but jnot sound argument. yes the balance isnt effected if noone uses a weapon in the system of balance...but THE WEAPON AVAILABLE is balance in itself. its the weapon being removed and unavailable to users having the same mechanics on all the remaining weapons that causes the game to be UNBALANCED.

LigHt116
09-18-2011, 09:14 PM
dude...you keep bringing up logic, put that aside for a sec then come back to it...what im saying was how the game was created. look into weapon balance and gears of war a little more. Power weapons or pickups are very different, they are balanced by map location and scarcety on the map. loadouts are balanced MUCH FINER and have a much more intriquet balance to them...they have to be tested against eachother and tweaked until they are perfect (or until what the devs feel are perfect) this is the facts.

now for the logic. if you are testing each weapon against eachother (which you have heard Joe Graf and other devs mention about balancing the loadout weapons) then LOGICALLY you can make the assesment that REMOVING A LOADOUT WEAPON WOULD EFFECT THE BALANCE.

i used the example of a scale with two sides...put all the weapons on the scale on each side, then remove one of those weapons and you have balance issues...

now your argument about "some people might not use certain weapons therefore balance isnt effected" was a valid but jnot sound argument. yes the balance isnt effected if noone uses a weapon in the system of balance...but THE WEAPON AVAILABLE is balance in itself. its the weapon being removed and unavailable to users having the same mechanics on all the remaining weapons that causes the game to be UNBALANCED.

You know nothing of Logic...my Argument was Deductive...Valid and correspondent with reality..thats what Sound means...stop using terms you are ignorant of...or at least google it before you waste another button press on your keyboard.. LISTEN...i am going to break this down into the simplest form of logic...the type of inference children make...please understand your Fallacy...TELL ME WHICH PART OF THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES IS WRONG..

Loadout Balance System is as follows:

(Reference Key)
L=Lancer G=Gnasher H=HammerBurst R=Retro Lancer S= Sawed-Off - also the symbol ">" means "Balanced to"

L>L
L>G
L>H
L>R
L>S

G>L
G>G
G>H
G>R
G>S

H>L
H>G
H>H
H>R
H>S

R>L
R>G
R>H
R>R
R>S

S>L
S>G
S>H
S>R
S>S
Understand how all the Weapons are Clearly Balanced? Watch what happens when i take the HammerBurst out.


L>L
L>G
L>R
L>S

G>L
G>G
G>R
G>S

R>L
R>G
R>R
R>S

S>L
S>G
S>R
S>S


Notice how regardless of its(Hammer) absence the remaining Weapons are still Balanced with each other? They dont need the existence of the Hammerburst to react perfectly to the rest of the Weapons. dont repeat your last comments....just LOGICALLY Explain how i am wrong....PLEEEEEASE...show how my example isnt Logical....watch...you will find NOTHING...you will ramble on about nonsense and not even attack my argument...its SOLID...

TRY ME

IDeadWork
09-18-2011, 10:14 PM
You know nothing of Logic...my Argument was Deductive...Valid and correspondent with reality..thats what Sound means...stop using terms you are ignorant of...or at least google it before you waste another button press on your keyboard.. LISTEN...i am going to break this down into the simplest form of logic...the type of inference children make...please understand your Fallacy...TELL ME WHICH PART OF THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES IS WRONG..

i am well versed on this topic. I am right in what i am saying...things i am saying are factual...i understand logic...ive gotten far in sequential math buddy your argument of logic does not apply to weapon balance in the game...these things your posting have nothing to do with what we are talking about your getting OFF TOPIC


Loadout Balance System is as follows:

this is where your trying to get fancy ... ready to be schooled??
i hope so


(Reference Key)
L=Lancer G=Gnasher H=HammerBurst R=Retro Lancer S= Sawed-Off - also the symbol ">" means "Balanced to"

for starters....its not that simple. your taking the WHOLE WEAPON and placing it in a "lancer" category what you forget to factor is the effectiveness from different ranges, the ammo count, the effectiveness of different shot patterns and many many many other different things about EACH WEAPON against EACH OTHER WEAPON.


Not every weapon is BALANCED TO EVERY OTHER WEAPON WITHOUT FACTORING IN A THIRD OR EVEN FORTH WEAPON.

Please read that last sentence twice.


L>L
L>G
L>H
L>R
L>S

G>L
G>G
G>H
G>R
G>S

H>L
H>G
H>H
H>R
H>S

R>L
R>G
R>H
R>R
R>S

S>L
S>G
S>H
S>R
S>S
Understand how all the Weapons are Clearly Balanced? Watch what happens when i take the HammerBurst out.
L>L
L>G
L>R
L>S

G>L
G>G
G>R
G>S

R>L
R>G
R>R
R>S

S>L
S>G
S>R
S>S


i respect your effort but this is FALSE not every weapon balances perfectly with every other weapon. Some weapons are balanced only when including a third or even forth weapon. Which brings me back to my original argument. The games balance includes ALL WEAPONS. Once a weapon is removed YOU NO LONGER HAVE BALANCE. You can RE BALANCE the game…but not leave it as is without changing something along the line.
Why don’t you private message Joe graf and ask him why they aren’t so quick to just remove weapons and give an overwhelming group an old school playlist besides the obvious matchmaking issues and clutter?


Notice how regardless of its(Hammer) absence the remaining Weapons are still Balanced with each other? They dont need the existence of the Hammerburst to react perfectly to the rest of the Weapons. dont repeat your last comments....just LOGICALLY Explain how i am wrong....PLEEEEEASE...show how my example isnt Logical....watch...you will find NOTHING...you will ramble on about nonsense and not even attack my argument...its SOLID...

TRY ME

I tried…and I succeeded. Your argument on logic doesn’t work. This is not an argument based on sequential math…stop trying to turn it into that.

your trying to make a math equation out of something far more intriquet then ~p > q it is indeed an equation, but we arent devs and we dont know that pattern. we only know what they tell us.

LigHt116
09-19-2011, 12:26 AM
i am well versed on this topic. I am right in what i am saying...things i am saying are factual...i understand logic...ive gotten far in sequential math buddy your argument of logic does not apply to weapon balance in the game...these things your posting have nothing to do with what we are talking about your getting OFF TOPIC



this is where your trying to get fancy ... ready to be schooled??
i hope so



for starters....its not that simple. your taking the WHOLE WEAPON and placing it in a "lancer" category what you forget to factor is the effectiveness from different ranges, the ammo count, the effectiveness of different shot patterns and many many many other different things about EACH WEAPON against EACH OTHER WEAPON.


Not every weapon is BALANCED TO EVERY OTHER WEAPON WITHOUT FACTORING IN A THIRD OR EVEN FORTH WEAPON.

Please read that last sentence twice.


i respect your effort but this is FALSE not every weapon balances perfectly with every other weapon. Some weapons are balanced only when including a third or even forth weapon. Which brings me back to my original argument. The games balance includes ALL WEAPONS. Once a weapon is removed YOU NO LONGER HAVE BALANCE. You can RE BALANCE the game…but not leave it as is without changing something along the line.
Why don’t you private message Joe graf and ask him why they aren’t so quick to just remove weapons and give an overwhelming group an old school playlist besides the obvious matchmaking issues and clutter?



I tried…and I succeeded. Your argument on logic doesn’t work. This is not an argument based on sequential math…stop trying to turn it into that.

your trying to make a math equation out of something far more intriquet then ~p > q it is indeed an equation, but we arent devs and we dont know that pattern. we only know what they tell us.

I know Symbolic Logic...Support your claim "Not every weapon is BALANCED TO EVERY OTHER WEAPON WITHOUT FACTORING IN A THIRD OR EVEN FORTH WEAPON. "....and you arent School in the Art of Inference all...

Whether you admit it or not...your Argument Commits a Fallacy..

The Balance Theory (Deuctive)

1. All Weapons are Balanced to one another.

2.To remove a Weapon would alter the Balance between them all.

3.Therefore unbalancing the system of weapons.

This commits a Fallacy...which is in the second Premise..

It states, because something is true of the part means it is also true of the whole. It does not follow...ask any Logician...

This is your argument in Formal Logic.

1.(a c d e f) have quality (b).
2.To remove (e) removes the quality (b) from (a c d f) < Not Proven or Logically Necessary
3. Therefore, (a c d f) are dependent on the changes of (e) < Leading to a False Conclusion
This is a clear Fallacy...


Example
1. Oranges, Apples, Grapes, Pears, and Pineapple all have H20 contained in them.
2. If Apples didnt exist then Oranges, Grapes, Pears, and Pineapples would not have H20 Contained in them.
3. Therefore, Oranges, Grapes, Pears, and Pineapple are all dependent on the change of Apples.

This is your argument....replacing Guns with Fruit...its pretty funny how silly it makes your Fallacy look...


If you knew the slightest thing about Logic...you would understand that its the foundation of ALL THINKING...how can you put the foundation of all thinking aside....well..i guess you have been doing this for awhile looking at your Balance Theory...

Your Fallacy is a tricky one... but is VERY clear...if you do not agree that

"1.(a c d e f) have quality (b).
2.To remove (e) removes the quality (b) from (a c d f) < Not Proven or Logically Necessary
3. Therefore, (a c d f) are dependent on the changes of (e) < Leading to a False Conclusion
This is a clear Fallacy..."

is a Fallacy...you are unable to inference correctly and should no longer be tampered with..lol

IDeadWork
09-19-2011, 12:43 AM
@light you try to talk science and math. but Im talking GEARS. all this nonsense your spewing is just distraction from you being wrong. then you make a thread about me like a child because you cant handle being wrong.

FACT - you cant remove loadout weapons in gears of war 3 without balancing the game over ...

your talking logic ... Im talking balance. two different discussions. two different aspects of mathematics...i dont know where your trying to take this convo...just admit that your wrong or dont, but im not continuing this convo...you dont retain information. you just ignore what im saying and just keep trying to appear intelligent.

end of discussion.

Shweatypalms x
09-19-2011, 01:20 AM
FACT - you cant remove loadout weapons in gears of war 3 without balancing the game over ...


Eh, not really a fact but more of stated opinion.

IDeadWork
09-19-2011, 02:26 AM
Eh, not really a fact but more of stated opinion.

do you listen to what the devs have said about weapon balance? the word BALANCE itself. research it ... why would developers of games even use the term?

cant remove weapons without rebalancing the game...period. im done here. you can disagree...you just dont know what your talking about...either that or your in denial because you want so much for a weapon to be taken out of the game.

balance is balance. heres the definition;
a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

once that distribution of weight is ALTERED it must be REDISTRIBUTED.

sorry but please some one tell me im wrong...lolololol

Shweatypalms x
09-19-2011, 03:34 AM
do you listen to what the devs have said about weapon balance? the word BALANCE itself. research it ... why would developers of games even use the term?

cant remove weapons without rebalancing the game...period. im done here. you can disagree...you just dont know what your talking about...either that or your in denial because you want so much for a weapon to be taken out of the game.

balance is balance. heres the definition;

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

once that distribution of weight is ALTERED it must be REDISTRIBUTED. sorry but please some one tell me im wrong...lolololol

Well this is all assuming the weapons are actually balanced correctly and that the developers are correct. However, the only way to truly know that these weapons are balanced is through high competitive play, not general public statistics and average players perceptions(not that those aren't tools that help towards balancing).

IDeadWork
09-19-2011, 09:16 AM
Well this is all assuming the weapons are actually balanced correctly and that the developers are correct. However, the only way to truly know that these weapons are balanced is through high competitive play, not general public statistics and average players perceptions(not that those aren't tools that help towards balancing).

I agree that this is assuming all weapons are balanced in the first place.

I think statistics do a better job then high competitive play. so I disagree with you there

Regardless What your saying is respectable and makes sense and you do bring up an excellent point...sorry for lashing out but the other guy I was arguing with was just being ridiculous.

BgBuckinChicken
09-19-2011, 12:56 PM
Any playlist with the DBS shouldnt be ranked since it requires no skill to use.

Dont use the dumb argument of "it requires skill to get up close" because it doesnt. Just roll and shoot.

IDeadWork
09-19-2011, 01:23 PM
Any playlist with the DBS shouldnt be ranked since it requires no skill to use.

Dont use the dumb argument of "it requires skill to get up close" because it doesnt. Just roll and shoot.

Get your best 4 ... You all use DBS. My team and I will use Gnasher...let's see who wins, if you manage to get a single kill with DBS I will be very surprised.

DBS is an inferior weapon. It has a purpose. It's not unbalanced. Removing it means rebalancing the entire game with out it.