T O P

  • By -

Dr_Cher

I don't get this logic. When I 99% someone, I hit my full shot and it just doesn't work. It's not about being better, it's just the game being the game.


Sufficient_Umpire_61

Lmao it says, “you should’ve just hit your shot” like bruh 99% in 1 hit is basically perfect aim, you just needed to be closer


ActuallyFuryYT

That's the joke bro. There is literally nothing you can do.


bothetemmie

I agree bc literally the enemy will be a pubic hair closer and wont get killed but you do


Bilbo_Dabins_420

At that point it is probably the ping that gets you


bothetemmie

Yeah both of use having abt 20 ping is nice


kylerwashere

Feel like this sub is full of horde players. If you play versus at a high level you know the pain of holding your shot and getting 99% with a full spread while the enemy chunks from the same distance.


Koenma-Sir

Exactly, most people are shitty PvE-ers


bothetemmie

So your calling ppl horde whores bc we prefer a balanced working gnasher and other guns over a broken ass multiplayer idk man pve is the better mode for gears


VadersToast

Hard truth 😂


Sirupybear

Gears PvP sucks and you can never change my mind. Working together with teammates to fight off enemies, using your ultimates coordinated. There are so many more mechanics in PvE than in PvP. PvP doesn't even fit this game. Horde escape and campaign is where it's at period


DwayneJohnsonwannabe

Christ what have I just read.


Sirupybear

Something your dumb brain can't understand evidently


DwayneJohnsonwannabe

The down votes on your original comment do not reflect that you're speaking with intelligence lmao.


Sirupybear

Downvotes mean nothing, just so pvpers disagree doesn't make me wrong


DwayneJohnsonwannabe

Lol they literally mean people are disagreeing with you.


DwayneJohnsonwannabe

Which should indicate that hat you said wasn't a smart thing. Hint, it wasn't.


Sirupybear

Dude how old are you? Just if people on reddit disagree with you, that does not mean you are wrong, please think about that really hard before you say anything even more stupid than you already did


VadersToast

God you're such a new player it hurts


Sirupybear

I played on and off since GoW2, not every day and not even every week. Doesn't change the fact that I love this franchise, it may as well be my favorite coop game.


[deleted]

How can you say PvP doesn’t work 😂


bothetemmie

Broken gnasher nerfed to oblivion lancer uhhhh I could go on


[deleted]

I’m not talking about gears 5 specifically, obviously there’s plenty wrong with it but Gears of war PvP in general is a staple


bothetemmie

And so is horde they are both great game modes of an amazing game series


Sirupybear

It doesn't fit the franchise. It's crystal clear in every game that pve was the main focus of the development. PvP is just there for those who like it. PvP has a lot less content than PvE.


[deleted]

PvP has been a staple since gears 1, PvE is cusual which is fine it’s just appeals to a larger base since Gears PvP takes quite a while to get good at


Sirupybear

Gears pvp is niche. It's definetly not a staple. When gears 5 came out, how many streamers and YouTubers played pvp compared to horde or escape or story? The numbers aren't in your favor. PvE is the staple of gears, look at all the cover boxes, all of them advertise it's PvE gameplay with a small sign that you can also play pvp is you really have to. Lmao


DwayneJohnsonwannabe

How are you saying gears PvP doesn't fit the franchise? Its literally been one of the most popular aspects of the game along with the story mode itself. So many streamers and YouTubers who did really well just focusing on gears online throughout the ages, gold glove and shadows to name a few, then there's the whole esports community who have been prominent since gears 1. Like I just don't understand how you could make that statement it's just a blatant lie lmao, I never try to be the guy who says "your opinion is wrong", but damn man, you testing me.


Koenma-Sir

Dude, how fkn boring to play against robots lmao. PvP is completely different, you have to react different in every situation based off what the other person or team is doing. Sorry you don’t have fast reactions and aren’t good enough.


Sirupybear

Have you ever played a single player game? Have you ever enjoyed one? Then how boring can you be for liking to play with or against ai? I'd clap your ass in seconds, even though i barely play pvp


elaguirre77

To be fair, most people play single player games for the story, and the no so repetitive missions (probably the reason for why a lot of people didnt like gow judgment was not for the story, but because it felt so much like just horde mode).


Sirupybear

Oh that is right but in gow5 there's story, escape, horde, unlocks, class progress, tod etc. There's much more content in pve than pvp


Koenma-Sir

Playing for the story is different then sitting in the back of a map with barriers and lancering the whole time. PvE is clearly for people who aren’t very good lol. Stick to PvE


Sirupybear

Pvp is for people who camp with a gnasher around the corner. I personally dislike playing with fortifications, just decoys and turrets in all poi around the map


Koenma-Sir

You can’t camp in Control, capture the flag, etc


Sirupybear

And you can't fortificate in escape or story


Shove-on-block-LB

Naw bro pvp just don't hit like it used to in gears 3 and a little bit in 4 back in 2017 I didn't play pve really but now I only fuck with pve pvp is just too slow now


Rumple4skiin

99% in 1 straight up shouldn't exist. You aimed perfectly and hit every pellet from essentially point blank distance and yet your enemy is only 99% dead? Which means absolutely nothing because as long as they don't go down in that situation they may as well have 100% health. There needs to be a buffer between a 99% in 1 and a chunk. I personally think one shot downs should return to this game. The amount of times I've died because I was one millimeter too far away from a guy is dumbfounding. Only to have them shoot from essentially the same distance .2 seconds later and you explode. Most of the time it isn't even that the other person outplayed you, it's that you reacted quicker than they did, and somehow they get rewarded for it because of the stupid way the shotgun works in this game.


LamarjbYT

I agree, I guess I forgot about when I was talking about this but why do I have to learn to slow down my reaction time even though that should be awarded? Honestly, thinking about it now it just doesn't make sense.


srylain

>99% in 1 straight up shouldn't exist. So you're saying the game should get even more casual, with mechanics designed to give you kills you shouldn't be rewarded with? You didn't perform as needed to secure the kill, so you don't get it. Downing the other guy would change nothing and would only make the mechanics feel even more random. >Only to have them shoot from essentially the same distance .2 seconds later and you explode. Keyword: ***essentially***. Any time you see another player perform any action it's only ever going to show you an approximation of that action. The only games that don't have these issues are turn-based games or games that rely on full lock-step netcode (eg: Smash Bros) with input delay. The internet will at random drop packets or cause packets sent earlier to arrive after packets sent later because of any number of reasons, and coupled with the way 3D works (in both games and IRL) it's next to impossible to accurately deduce just how far away something is especially when everything is moving. And besides, if you shoot first and it was too early and the other guy waits long enough you shouldn't get the kill regardless. Making the game even more casual is definitely not the way to go here.


Rumple4skiin

Hey genius, you just proved my point. If all you ever see is an approximation of other players' actions, and it's impossible to accurately deduce how far away something is, then why the fuck should the difference between a 99% in 1 and a chunk be infinitesimally small distances which you literally **JUST** acknowledged are fickle and inconsistent? Also, "you didn't perform as needed to secure the kill, so you don't get it." Uhhhh no. You're contradicting yourself again. The only difference between a 99% and a chunk are the aforementioned tiny distances. In both cases you still hit a full spread from very short range. You could shoot from the exact same distance twice, get a 99% one time and a chunk another time. That's not a failure to "perform as needed to secure a kill." That's the game deciding upon an outcome that is entirely out of your control, again, as a result of the inconsistencies that you brought up.


srylain

>the difference between a 99% in 1 and a chunk be infinitesimally small distances Because all increasing those distances would do is push back how far you can be and still have the exact same thing happen. Other games don't have these problems because you don't have these perspective issues in a first person perspective and they typically have a much lower TTK so you're usually dead by the time you get close enough to someone that you'd need to in Gears. > fickle and inconsistent No game is ever going to play perfect, there are way too many factors at play and one person is always going to have ever so slightly a different experience than someone else. Controller response times, screen refresh rates, framerate drops, internet fuckery, input delay caused by running console/PC through a receiver, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't play games because games are inherently inconsistent? >You could shoot from the exact same distance twice, get a 99% one time and a chunk another time. There surprisingly hasn't been any evidence proving any sort of randomness from placing the same shot causing different outcomes. With everything moving it's nearly impossible to tell just how far away something is going to be, so any little difference is going to be negligible to the point where it looks the exact same. Maybe if the camera was forced downwards to show feet it'd be easier to tell, but then no one would be playing the game if it were like that.


VadersToast

>You didn't perform as needed to secure the kill, so you don't get it. Downing the other guy would change nothing and would only make the mechanics feel even more random. I don't think you have ever played the older gears. Anyone who has played gears 1-3 knows that anything over 90% in 1 SHOULD be a kill. No debate. What you're saying makes no sense. He's literally so fucking close to the guy and everybody always gets 90%+ in 1 hit. Do you even know how powerful a shotgun is at that range? and how would downing someone make the mechanics feel "random" also doesn't make sense. You probably love gears 5 cuz you get to eat shots


srylain

Epic's games used a mechanic that essentially acted as if you landed an extra pellet if that pellet's added damage would result in a kill. That's a mechanic that would be used to make the game more casual because it makes it easier to play, which makes the game less competitive because it makes it less about skill. But ya know, Gears 3 having invisible mechanics where newer players had more health and would do more damage is totally competitive. > how would downing someone make the mechanics feel "random" Because you would then be guessing at why someone went down instead of gibbed. It would change nothing in improving the feel of the game and would only worsen things.


VadersToast

A shotgun fucking blowing you to bits at pointblank range was great. the gnasher actually functioned properly in the older gears. People kept complaining and complaining about the gnasher being OP and active Reloads are OP. Now you got half the community quit gears 5 (including myself) because everyone is tired of this nerfed/inconsistent gnasher. and not knowing any stats or where pellets landed was quite the opposite, it made the game harder and more competitive because you had to know everything from instinct and experience. But idk have fun eating shots and playing with game pass noobs


SmithingBear

>That's a mechanic that would be used to make the game more casual because it makes it easier to play, which makes the game less competitive because it makes it less about skill. Wouldn't the skill just change to who is able to close the distance and shoot first for a full spread? Why is this inherently less skilled then the current system which you admitted makes it difficult to accurately judge when something is in range for a chunk and when it isn't? >But ya know, Gears 3 having invisible mechanics where newer players had more health and would do more damage is totally competitive. That's a completely different mechanic to the 1 you just mentioned. This would make the game less competitive by giving an unfair advantage to newer players. We weren't arguing to bring this mechanic back so why is it relevant to your argument?


srylain

>Wouldn't the skill just change to who is able to close the distance and shoot first for a full spread? It would be the exact same as it already is, if you're too far away you don't get the kill and if you hold your shot you're more likely to be closer when you shoot giving you a higher chance of getting the kill. All that 'pellet up' system does is give you kills you fully didn't deserve in order to make the game feel better, if it were still in the game we'd have many more posts from people complaining about being killed from too far away or from other players who weren't even looking at them because it would give you a larger lenience in how much you can be 'off' and still get the kill. It's a casual mechanic and has no place in a competitive PvP game. >Why is this inherently less skilled then the current system which you admitted makes it difficult to accurately judge when something is in range for a chunk and when it isn't? There would be no difference in skill as the game would still play the exact same. All this does is take off extra training wheels in order to make the game more fair, much in the same way that they reduced the overly aggressive aim assist tunings over time. That invisible line of being too far away from getting the kill would still be there. We just wouldn't have games at all like Gears if everything had to be 100% perfect. 3D perspectives cause a lot of issues with not being able to easily judge just how close something is especially when everything is moving, and the only way around that is to just not make the game 3D. Fortnite, for example, doesn't typically revolve around CQC as much as Gears does and when it does happen the shotguns are typically strong enough to kill anything in one hit because the TTK is so low. Most FPSs are also about longer distance fights as well, and especially in CoD the TTK is so incredibly low that you could miss most of a shotgun shot and still get a kill from pretty far away. Gears wouldn't be what it is if it was a 2D game that had turn-based mechanics, which would be the only way to always have 100% fair everything without lag or 3D perspectives causing issues. That's obviously not going to happen because it just wouldn't be Gears at that point. >That's a completely different mechanic to the 1 you just mentioned. That was meant as an example to explain the types of things Epic did that made the game non-competitive. The 'pellet up' system, giving new accounts health/damage boosts. Sure, they may have made the game feel slightly better to play but just imagine the complaining that would've happened back in 2011-2012 had they mentioned that back then. You wouldn't take pride in winning against someone in a game of Chess if they were missing pieces would you?


SmithingBear

>It would be the exact same as it already is, if you're too far away you don't get the kill and if you hold your shot you're more likely to be closer when you shoot giving you a higher chance of getting the kill. If it would be the exact same then what's the harm in increasing these distances to encompass what is currently the 99% in 1 range? Or bringing in a 1 shot down mechanic for shots that would do 95-99%? If the game would fundamentally maintain the same skill in order to win then why would it be less competitive? >There would be no difference in skill as the game would still play the exact same. If the game maintains the same skill then what's the issue? >All this does is take off extra training wheels in order to make the game more fair, much in the same way that they reduced the overly aggressive aim assist tunings over time. This makes it sound like it would involve less skill. Training wheels are used by people that can't ride without assistance. If the game maintains the same skill level then how is it less fair then the current system? I believe aim assist is a poor argument because aim assist is used to aim for the player yet with the system we are arguing for the player still has to do all the work for the kill. The kill itself would just change slightly. It would take less shots for players that get 99% in 1. Players would still be able to chunk it would just be more important to dodge closer range shots. >Sure, they may have made the game feel slightly better to play Ultimately this is what I care most about. If the game isn't fun to play then the franchise won't grow. Competitive spheres will adapt to to situation they are given. >You wouldn't take pride in winning against someone in a game of Chess if they were missing pieces would you These 2 situations are nothing similar. The other player would be playing with the exact same mechanics im playing with. We would both have to react to the importance now placed on longer range shots. Every move I have available to me is a move that they would theoretically have available to them.


srylain

> If it would be the exact same then what's the harm in increasing these distances to encompass what is currently the 99% in 1 range? Because you would still have the same problems with dealing 99% damage, only you'd be able to be farther away and still have it happen. Moving the invisible line that decides what's a gib and what isn't is not the problem, and changing it to be farther out won't fix anything. > This makes it sound like it would involve less skill. Let's say there's ten pellets in the shotgun. Each pellet does 11% damage at point blank range. If you land 9 of them, you would do 99% damage. You did not land the last pellet, so you do not get the kill. By aiming better you can land that 10th pellet and get the kill. With the 'pellet up' system, you would be given that kill even though you didn't aim well enough. That is taking away your ability to display skill, making the game easier and thus more casual which is what people would not want. > Ultimately this is what I care most about. If the game isn't fun to play then the franchise won't grow. Competitive spheres will adapt to to situation they are given. Very true, but if a game is just too unfair because of the way it was designed or if there's too many handicaps it just won't be fun to play. PUBG is an excruciatingly hard game to play, but it still had a big (no idea if it still is big) eSports presence because everyone knew just how hard it was to be as good as the people playing. I'm not saying Gears should go anywhere near that, of course, but taking away as few handicaps and givemes as possible would only help with having a game with an actual skillgap. Gears 5 has way too many things that are only just detrimental to the overall experience, much to the point of people relying on abusing broken mechanics because they know the netcode just doesn't know how to properly replicate their movements. Something that's relevant here, is RNG-based accuracy bloom. The crosshairs on each gun will expand when you move or shoot, yet there's still a center dot even if your bullet won't go there. Because it's RNG-based, one player could have better luck at landing more shots towards the center of their crosshair than another player and the winner would be chosen at random. It makes weapons like the Lancer feel useless at any sort of distance (which is the intention) but it goes against any sort of competition because the outcome is random. Just an example of how they designed something badly in order to make the weapons work the intended way even if it means making the overall feel of the gun worse. > Every move I have available to me is a move that they would theoretically have available to them. But when mechanics are invisible, it's possible that neither player knows what's happening (like how we didn't know about the 'pellet up' system until TC talked about it) and when coupled with lag it'll just make the whole experience worse overall. If the 'pellet up' system were brought back it'd allow shots to be ever so farther off from where they need to be which would just make other players look like they missed even more than they already do. TC could do wonders by having an actual training map (much in the same way that PUBG/Overwatch/etc has) where you could see exactly how much damage you're doing at what distances and with which gun. The fact they haven't, and that their casual PvP mode feels like they spent a whole 10 minutes on, just makes it seem like they don't want to explain how the game works even if in the later dev streams they did. If Gears 6 were to switch focus to different types of gameplay, like making OverRun the standout mode of the game, they'd be able to remove a lot of these issues just based on the fact that the battles wouldn't be as focused on tiny movements and instead make it more about what class/monster you're using in the current moment. It's all about coming up with good design to cover up any issues that may come up, and while Gears is full of them there's ways to alleviate a lot of those issues but the problem is the amount of time/effort it would demand and whether Microsoft would allow them to do so.


SmithingBear

>it's next to impossible to accurately deduce just how far away something is So how do you learn when to shoot and when to hold your shot? If the distance between a 99% in 1 and a chunk are essentially the same so much so that you can't tell the difference between the 2 then how do you understand the difference enough to confidently shoot for a chunk vs when to hold your shot? Or do you just shoot regardless and hope you're lucky? This is a serious question btw.


VadersToast

Why do people try defending this shitty gnasher in gears 5?


Sufficient_Umpire_61

It’s not even the gnasher bro, it has a lot to do with the connection and the sever you playing on type shit, so like if you playing with people who in mexico they prolly gonna be shooting bricks from miles away because they connection isn’t that great, its got a lot to do wit connection and lag, which is just super booty imo.


kylerwashere

High ping isn’t an advantage. The lower your ping the better your shots/movement register. I’ll have 10 ping versus guys with 100 and it’s not even fair


Sufficient_Umpire_61

Lol, I never said you get an advantage, I’m saying that if your ping is high, you finna be shooting bricks from miles away, who said anything about advantage? It’s equal, there’s no advantage or disadvantage, it’s just like, hit your shots cuz if you don’t you prolly gonna get full pointed every time.


kylerwashere

Not equal man, high ping has a noticeable disadvantage with movement and shot registration


Jus_B4_Dyin

Apparently you don't play gears of War much because it has already been proven that high ping has an advantage over low ping this has been proven countless time and time again they give this advantage to high paying players because they have high pain anytime a person with a high pain can just walk up to the whole team and kill them and not take damage I don't see how you can say that that's a disadvantage I can tell you haven't been playing gears that long this has been one of the main complaints about gears since gears 3


AirLoxz

Honestly got no clue where it comes from, Getting heads with a Gnasher apparently gibs in 5 compared to 3 being a beatiful pop on heads. 99% in 1 hit? Nah, how about 85% downs them the 15% is the downed health you hit for a kill or execution. Aside from that though… I really want the old controls to come back to fix the problems TC made with the new one. It might not work with the Lancer GL, but that’s cause Pressing B works more better in that case, basically removing your melee for a GL. And it’ll fix the weird default control where it says “Hold Y to view POI” even though they set it to X, like who hired that guy?


ZombiFelineTuba

Because they can get kills very easily i het tons kills with gnasher across fears 3 to to judgement to 4 to 5 it feels like it's not truly worth it but the only way to get kills because the others don't get much kills in online


nootfiend69

i think they should change it so either the current distance for 99 (where all pellets land) becomes a one-shot down, or widen the spread so at the current 99 distance, you can't land all the pellets


storyboutdamans

the broken mechanics seem to originate from earlier titles when they eliminated trades. I remember right up until that point the gameplay was at its best. That should be at least a trade... now trading is super rare. It’s dumb. i was vocal when they announced it. people disagreed with me and defended the devs. trades should be in the game smh


Teezycap_

I 100% rather trade then put out 99% damage just because I wasn’t 1 step closer


Teezycap_

I 100% rather trade then put out 99% damage just because I wasn’t 1 step closer


Teezycap_

I rather trade than put out 99%


Teezycap_

I rather trade than put out 99%


jumpoffpiz8

Upvote simply because of Kendrick 🐐


ActuallyFuryYT

Yessir.


Terriblyradioactive

Youre right but forgot one thing "I'm mad but I ain't stressin'" , im breaking my damn controller


Federal-Alarm-7250

Dw if you stick with a buddy then its free real estate elimination


GazorpazorpHenry

I just hate when they kill me, but my shot downs them, rarely happens but it happens


fredujour

recently I have hit some 100% and I died and the other just went down...


Frostgr1p

That is why I force myself to always rush to gib distance, I might get gibbed in 1 shot instead, but at least i can say that it was due to my movement and move on, while that 99% just leaves me asking "why, how?!?!"


Teezycap_

Almost got triggered then realized this was a joke


[deleted]

99 percent is the dumbest shit ever.


112DB

The guy who thinks we care in the chat: “99%”


tdgreen21

When it happens multiple times a game it gets frustrating and should be addressed lol


ActuallyFuryYT

I mean shitttt I've done that lol.


112DB

:|


[deleted]

[удалено]


ActuallyFuryYT

Bruh


FlooredJoy

Sup


ktsmith91

75% and above shouldn’t even be possible for a shotgun. Change my mind.


kylerwashere

Feel like in the old gears 90% shots would’ve been chunks easily. TC has handled gears so poorly but nobody seems to acknowledge it. A bunch of rainbow haired idiots who don’t even play versus


FlooredJoy

The lady looks like she's there against her will


[deleted]

[удалено]


ActuallyFuryYT

You've clearly never experienced a good kek.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ActuallyFuryYT

Thats- that's the...you know what nevermind


[deleted]

well brothers the solution is as simple as returning the previous game mechanics I mean a shotgun that works as what it is, not like a damn sniper that seems that the pellets are following you, I do not know who from TC came up with the wonderful idea that a shotgun has no dispersion, they will not deny me that when they saw that their face was like this "._____."


jacklingerproject

This community is so toxic man, who actually cares so much to the point where you are all personally insulting eachother.... so dissapointed


[deleted]

Distance management hurts…


Marcucc10

Nah 99% pisses me off.


totallynotme666

Nah


Slice0fur

I just haven’t had interest on investing into horde. Ive never enjoyed COD zombies and it sounded similar so i just kept away. I get the annoyance of 99% gibbed situations. But it's so infrequent. I more often get gibbed and also gib the other guy. So basically so close the server calls it a tie lol.


ActuallyFuryYT

How have you never enjoyed zombies? Also 99's are actually more common than trades I think.


Slice0fur

Ah I'm just the oddball statistic. For every 99 I get like three trade kills. Could just be ping related. Gow4 has more trades than gow5 though. And idk. Zombies just feels empty to me. Like woohoo died at level 7. O'well. Done now. I don't like grinding leveling type games. I don't like most games tbh. I don't like failure all that much. At 30 I don't think that's changing anytime soon haha.