Gears of War 3

[The Real Gamer]

You can keep your Gnasher rushing, that lone wolf style gameplay is incredibly idiotic and is usually used by folk that scream broken at everything that isn't a Gnasher, and I'll keep my smart playstyle and 98 wins, 5 losses and 2.9 K/D.

Man I really wish you played GoW2...

 

[Wretched]

Lol.
That was the stupidest response I've ever seen from anyone to anything ever.
Mura said so many things, and you responded with the most generic insult you could think of, and then you stroked your **** with your KD/WL

 

[The Real Gamer]

^^^ May I add which means absolutely nothing since the beta is new which means "noobs" are all over the place.

 

[Wretched]

Seriously.
Let me just conjure up a story as an example...
In the first 2 weeks of blackops, when ERRYONE played, my K/D was 5.0+ almost every match, and my cumulative K/D was 3.5 by the end of the first couple of weeks.
Now it is 1.35.

Also, I haven't said much on the account of Pluvia vs. Mura... The gnasher should win anything close-mid range. The Sawnoff should win anything close range with exceptions, the gnasher being one.
Neither the Gnasher nor the Sawnoff should lose firefights to PLancers within reasonable range. The Plancer, the hammerburst, and the Lancer are all made to be used from a distance, and the power of the retro lancer up close seems to be REALLY GOOD. The hipfire with it has been nothing but accurate from what I've seen.

So, here's what needs to happen, but this is conjecture:
Gnasher: They obviously put the most thought into the most popular weapon. It seems to be that this is balanced well.
Sawnoff: They need to give it a slight range boost, they need to lower the damage, and they need to lower the spread. I've seen people get kills from ridiculous angles to the point where they don't even have to line up their shot. It's like how the two-piece originally lined you up with your opponent so you didn't have to aim.
Plancer: Lower the close range damage, spread the hipfire more, lower kick while ADS, boost long range damage.
Lancer: Leave it alone.
HB: Leave it alone.

I've only played the beta once, so this is based on that and videos.

 

[Pluvia]

Mura wrote a lot, but he never said a lot, look I'll put it into different words:

There's the mistake I was expecting someone to make. People always like to equate defensive, cautious playing with "smart" playing, and equate rushing with being an idiot, like Pluvia actually did later on, but that's not necessarily true. A player can be a rusher or camper and be smart or stupid.

"I'm implying that rushing, even head first towards a guy with an assault rifle which Pluvia said was idiotic, is smart and that any other style of play is cowardly. "A player can be a rusher or a camper and be smart or stupid" In other words, a neutral statement that means absolutely nothing."

For example, in Gears 2 I often rush several opponents at once in order to distract them from something else my team mates are doing.
Another instance is that if someone ever runs away from me, I'll rush them because I can get the upper hand way more easily when they eventually stop running.
If a person is at mid-range with a boomshot, I'll bait and jump away from the first shot, then rush the second shot and jump toward him when he shoots it, which will cause damage to me, but not kill me, leaving him without ammo (If I succeed the first bait, the rest always works.)
Or, if I notice some enemies going after an important weapon, I'll rush and kill the guy who picks it up and attempt to kill or get away from the others.

"I rush."

On the other hand, there are lots of times when playing defensively is one of the stupidest things I've seen. For example, in Gears 2, if I know that someone is hiding in a spot, I'll go and pick up other weapons because I know that most of the time those people are trying to wait for me to approach so they can have the advantage, but since I know they're not going anywhere, that gives me all the opportunity in the world to prepare.
I've seen other people, so set in defensive, campy ways that they won't help their team-mates who are being killed. And others, since their camp habits are so predictable, can be rushed and killed immediately.

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid, and I rush, in this scenario I created I won because the opponent didn't do anything."

So I completely disagree that playing cautiously and defensively is "smart" there's nothing inherently smart about it. The decisions a player makes are what makes them a smart player, and this is something possible by both offensive and defensive players, and should be manifested in both respects in a good player. That's why, instead of referring to defensive playing as "smart" I refer to it as cowardly, because it lacks the offensive capability that a player needs to have in order to be well rounded, and instead trades it for selfish and menial personal prides of having a high K/D or thinking that they're somehow smarter than other players without the dexterous ability to handle thos eplayers otherwise, and thus, garners no respect from me.

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid, and if you don't rush you're automatically stupid. "The decisions a player makes are what makes them a smart player, and this is something possible by both offensive and defensive players, and should be manifested in both respects in a good player" - In other words, a neutral middle ground that means absolutely nothing."

Furthermore, playing defensively is not smart, but it is safe, and safety is what cowards look for. I have always affirmed that a team of 5 with coordinated hammerbursts/lancers will dominate any warzone or execution match where opponents don't do the same, simply because the combined power of projectile weapons is too great and too easy to set up. That's exactly why I don't play execution or warzone, because a coordinated camping is the best strategy. It doesn't require that a player be well rounded in any way shape or form, and the ideal metagame of it would be one where two teams wait for someone to mess up with their distance weapons. That's what it comes down to. Think about it, why exactly does defensive play work? In order to get a defensive kill, a person needs to attack an offensive player. But if both teams were playing solely defensively because it's safer, then no one would get a kill until someone tries to make a move. This is another reason wht I don't regard defensive play as smart, because it's nothing more than taking advantage of someone else's impatience. This turns the whole thing into a waiting game, and utterly makes the game boring. But those people who do pride themselves on how "smart" they were because they waited longer around a corner than another person fail to realize that the "tactics" they use are fueled solely by the people who want to get something accomplished in the game, and if everyone played like they did, camping would be an ineffective and difficult strategy to pull off.

"I think any other style of player other than rushing is stupid. If everyone played the game exactly the same way I think the game would be boring."

So instead, since rushers are inevitably the ones who make the game playable, I respect their intelligence far more than I can respect a camper's, because a camper's mindset is based solely around fear and uncertainty, whereas a rusher takes the uncertainty without the fear and decides to make something happen.

"I think rushing is smart, and I've deluded myself into think that any other style isn't."

So in short, defensive play doesn't impress me one bit in the realms of "smart play." People who play defensively aren't smart, in fact, I'd argue that they are far less intelligent than rushers because rushers understand and have mastered the game to an extent to which they are comfortable and confident with their own ability to discern and execute scenarios of risk and reward based on knowledge of the game and how it works

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid. I think rushers are smart."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

There you have it. My "stupid response" actually answered his entire post, I just never drew it out into a long post because he said the same thing multiple times, and it only needed answering once.

His entire argument boiled down to what I showed you above, and my "stroking my ego" was me pointing out that, if playing defensively was as stupid and ineffective as he was making out, I would have no where near the stats that I do. It shows that his argument is just plain old opinion, and a simple "I disagree, here's my stats to show why" is enough to suffice. And that's exactly what I achieved in my previous post, it was just a hell of a lot shorter than this one.

 

[MuraRengan]

"I'm implying that rushing, even head first towards a guy with an assault rifle which Pluvia said was idiotic, is smart and that any other style of play is cowardly. "A player can be a rusher or a camper and be smart or stupid" In other words, a neutral statement that means absolutely nothing."

Completely incorrect. I'm not implying that all rushing is smart, but I am implying that not all rushing is stupid. Also, the "neutral statement" is meant set the precedent for my following argument, which is that rushing is not inherently stupid, and camping is not inherently smart.

"I rush."

Way to oversimplify. Your closed-mindedness is very apparent. The point of this post was to show when rushing is used as a tactic, as in, with though behind it.

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid, and I rush, in this scenario I created I won because the opponent didn't do anything."

I'm not making this up. I see these scenarios all the time, and yes I do win because the opponents don't do anything, but that's exactly my point about some camping being stupid.

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid, and if you don't rush you're automatically stupid. "The decisions a player makes are what makes them a smart player, and this is something possible by both offensive and defensive players, and should be manifested in both respects in a good player" - In other words, a neutral middle ground that means absolutely nothing."

I never said anything about defensive play being stupid. I'm only arguing that it's not inherently smart. Then, I gave an example of the ideal player, one who uses offense and defense effectively and appropriately. Then I gave my own reason for calling you a coward, and saying why I have no respect for cowards.

"I think any other style of player other than rushing is stupid. If everyone played the game exactly the same way I think the game would be boring."

Yet again you fail to understand the argument. You should take this preconceived notion of my mindset and throw it away, because you've been wrong in every deduction so far. The argument in this paragraph is that defensive play is safe, but if everyone played safe, the game would be unplayable. Defensive players owe all their kills to people who actually want to play the game, which means play unsafely.

"I think rushing is smart, and I've deluded myself into think that any other style isn't."

Yet again, misunderstanding the argument.

"I think any other style of play other than rushing is stupid. I think rushers are smart."

And again.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore the rest of the post after that, because it's very clear that you misunderstood everything about the argument. The reason why you're misunderstanding my argument is because you keep making false assumptions about the ulterior motives behind my argument. So instead of trying to classify me as a "rusher", just reply to the actual arguments I'm making, not the arguments you think I'm making. Other than that, you still have some very flawed interpretative ideas, especially the one about a "player being offensive and defensive cancels out and means nothing." That was by far the most ridiculous thing you said and showed that you didn't comprehend (or attempt to comprehend) a thing I said. I can't argue with you if you don't respond to the things I say.

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that you've effectively admitted that my prediction about your playstyle was true.

 

[smash brawl player 99021]

Wow, I never knew how annoying that could really be. Pluvia is a cool guy, let's just leave him alone.

 

[Pluvia]

So in other words, you don't want to argue, and neither do I seeing as though it all comes down to opinion.

Case settled then.

 

[WindMajor]

I think I'm gonna be playing the beta all night tonight. I'll go ahead and leave another swf invitation to anyone here who wants to play in my party. Just add me and join my game. Even though I mainly play for the fun, I'm down for getting a bit serious and playing some ranked.

With that being said, F8AL hurry up and get the beta!

 

[MuraRengan]

So in other words, you don't want to argue, and neither do I seeing as though it all comes down to opinion.

Case settled then.

No, what it comes down to is, you're taking my arguments for something they're not, and if you continue to do so, there will be no point in arguing. Whether or not this all comes down to opinion remains to be seen. If my arguments are too complex for you, then just say it and I'll be done, but don't pretend like you do by putting words in my mouth, because I'll call you out on it every time.

It appears to me that YOU don't want to argue, but I most certainly do, because not only do I know that I know what I'm talking about, I know that you don't.

Really don't try to unnecessarily irk me because I wont drop it.

What happened? I thought you said you wouldn't drop it, but it appears you already have.

 

[Pluvia]

No I'm dropping it because I will keep it going on unless I stop myself. You taunted me back into it so I wont restrain myself now, I feel like keeping it going for the next few years now.

So it's not opinion as you say. You presented your case, I presented mine, I presented evidence to back up my case in K/D and W/L, it's increased to 3.0 (1015 kills, 337 deaths) and 23.8 (119 wins, 5 losses). So post yours, your technique is obviously superior so your stats should dwarf mine.

 

[MuraRengan]

Ok, first lets establish one thing. Do you even understand what we're arguing? Because your last post doesn't indicate so.

 

[Pluvia]

I'm arguing that your opinions on play styles are just that, opinions. Therefore trying to argue something that holds just as much ground as the complete opposite view is absolutely pointless.

 

[smash brawl player 99021]

Ok, first lets establish one thing. Do you even understand what we're arguing? Because your last post doesn't indicate so.

I'm arguing that your opinions on play styles are just that, opinions. Therefore trying to argue something that holds just as much ground as the complete opposite view is absolutely pointless.

Take it to the VM's, you hooligans.

 

[MuraRengan]

I'm arguing that your opinions on play styles are just that, opinions. Therefore trying to argue something that holds just as much ground as the complete opposite view is absolutely pointless.

Ok, so you're taking the subject off track. No matter, I'll just address this.

Your argument represents something you don't fully believe, because earlier you made opinionated statements about rushers. I'll quote.

I think it's the fact that the people he's facing are idiots.

that lone wolf style gameplay is incredibly idiotic and is usually used by folk that scream broken at everything that isn't a Gnasher, and I'll keep my smart playstyle

Opinions in red.

Furthermore, if you truly believe that arguing opinions is pointless, then why did you say this earlier?

Missing you constantly, even if they've come up behind you, and PLancer charging head first towards you which happens twice in that video.

Another thing that's evident is the fact that all of them whip out the Gnasher, apart from in the about 3 instances of missing you at point blank range with the sawn off, and try advancing towards you. If you have a PLancer out they should've just got into cover and Hammerbusted you. It's not exactly rocket science.

This was your earlier argument to support your opinion that the people I played against were idiots. That lets me know that this little defense you're making is not what you really believe, because if you did, you wouldn't have stated and argued your opinions earlier. Rather, now that you're backed into a corner, you're trying to look for a way to make this argument unarguable because you're realizing that I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not stupid, sir. If you want to invalidate my arguments as opinion, then the things you said about gnasher users the the opponents in that video are also invalid, meaning, once again, you have no grounds to call your playstyle "smart" while calling others "stupid."

Furthermore, I do not believe that all opinions hold the same weight, that's why I'm arguing in the first place. If everyone's opinion held equal ground, then decision-making in the world would be impossible. Government decisions are pure opinion, but those opinions are weighted by their own merits against each other to decide which will achieve goals the best. In the same way, I'm arguing that my opinion holds more practical ground than yours.

 

[The Real Gamer]

If both of you played GoW2 we could easily settle this right now with about 7-8 Excecution matches and see who performs better...

 

[F8AL]

I think I'm gonna be playing the beta all night tonight. I'll go ahead and leave another swf invitation to anyone here who wants to play in my party. Just add me and join my game. Even though I mainly play for the fun, I'm down for getting a bit serious and playing some ranked.

With that being said, F8AL hurry up and get the beta!

I will. (On Monday.)

 

[Pluvia]

Ok, so you're taking the subject off track. No matter, I'll just address this.

Your argument represents something you don't fully believe, because earlier you made opinionated statements about rushers. I'll quote.





Opinions in red.

Furthermore, if you truly believe that arguing opinions is pointless, then why did you say this earlier?



This was your earlier argument to support your opinion that the people I played against were idiots. That lets me know that this little defense you're making is not what you really believe, because if you did, you wouldn't have stated and argued your opinions earlier. Rather, now that you're backed into a corner, you're trying to look for a way to make this argument unarguable because you're realizing that I know what I'm talking about. But I'm not stupid, sir. If you want to invalidate my arguments as opinion, then the things you said about gnasher users the the opponents in that video are also invalid, meaning, once again, you have no grounds to call your playstyle "smart" while calling others "stupid."

Furthermore, I do not believe that all opinions hold the same weight, that's why I'm arguing in the first place. If everyone's opinion held equal ground, then decision-making in the world would be impossible. Government decisions are pure opinion, but those opinions are weighted by their own merits against each other to decide which will achieve goals the best. In the same way, I'm arguing that my opinion holds more practical ground than yours.

And it seems you don't know how to read.

What I said there was, wait for it, my opinion.

Of course you voiced your opinion too, but what makes you so stupid? This:

Whether or not this all comes down to opinion remains to be seen.

I don't need to explain why my opinion is more valid than yours, I have already said it's completely pointless to argue seeing as though one opinion isn't more valid than the other, it's you that needs to prove that your argument isn't opinion. Any logical fallacies you are scraping the bottom of the barrel for aren't going to hold any ground if you're using my opinions, I'm just waiting for you to inevitable conclude that your opinion holds no weight over mine, and that your opinion is just that, opinion.

 

[MuraRengan]

Well, if you're not going to back up your arguments, then there's not more I need to do to defend mine other than what I've already done. Furthermore, it's pretty foolish of you to state your opinion with no intent on backing it up, just says to me that you really don't know what you're talking about.

And the only reason I talked about your opinion is to point out that I know that the statement you made about arguing opinions is a lie, and that you can't fool me with it, whether you want to admit it or not.

I've given my opinion, and I've given the reasons behind my opinion. Until you say something, your opinion holds no ground at all, meaning that mine definitely holds more than yours.

 

[Pluvia]

Apart from my stats, which you haven't posted.

I agree 100% with everything I've said. You saying it's a lie does not make it one. It seems you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here, "I can't think of a way to counter that argument, so I'm just going to say it's a lie."

So far I'm the only one with any piece of evidence to back my claim, even though it's completely pointless, but the whole point is you concluding your opinion has no more weight than mine no matter what we present.

 

[MuraRengan]

double post

 

[MuraRengan]

Apart from my stats, which you haven't posted.

Lol, ok, lets again make 100% sure that we're arguing the same thing.

I was arguing that ther is no inherent quality of smartness with either defensive or offensive play. Stats have nothign to do with that.

I agree 100% with everything I've said. You saying it's a lie does not make it one. It seems you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here, "I can't think of a way to counter that argument, so I'm just going to say it's a lie."

Well, if you're not lying, then you're a fool, because your actions completely contradict your words. You said that one opinion doesn't hold more ground than another, but you asserted your opinion that rushers are stupid against mine. You said that arguing opinions is pointless, but you gave an argument for why you think my opponents were stupid. You've contradicted yourself. So take your pick, either you were lying, or you're a fool.

So far I'm the only one with any piece of evidence to back my claim, even though it's completely pointless, but the whole point is you concluding your opinion has no more weight than mine no matter what we present.

The only claim you've made is that opinions can't be argued, and I see no evidence supporting that.

You've provided evidence with your K/D, but it doesn't refer to any claim you've made.

 

[Pluvia]

Wait are you being serious? You honestly think that if you say an opinion it becomes fact?

For example, here is a simple version of my argument:

"Blue is the best colour there is and anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot. But at the same time my opinion holds no weight over someone elses because it's my opinion."

What you're saying is that's a contradiction, when you clearly don't know what a contradiction is.

Honestly I'm unsure if you're being serious or not. I hope not because that really is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Also, you've yet to do anything that shows that your opinion isn't actually an opinion, and that it holds weight over mine. No point trying, and failing, to poke holes in my argument to take yourself out of the spotlight.

 

[ThreeX]

theory of war is so ef'n sick guys.

 

[MuraRengan]

Wait are you being serious? You honestly think that if you say an opinion it becomes fact?

When did I say that?

For example, here is a simple version of my argument:

"Blue is the best colour there is and anyone that doesn't think so is an idiot. But at the same time my opinion holds no weight over someone elses because it's my opinion."

What you're saying is that's a contradiction, when you clearly don't know what a contradiction is.

There's no contradiction there, that's just stupidity. If you know full well that your opinion holds no ground, then you have no reason to assert it. You have a right to your opinion, but if it holds no ground, then proclaiming in a public forum just makes you a *******. This is some of the most irrational logic I've ever seen. If you're going to assert an opinion, you should be able to give people a reason why they should believe it, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time with empty words.

Honestly I'm unsure if you're being serious or not. I hope not because that really is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Also, you've yet to do anything that shows that your opinion isn't actually an opinion, and that it holds weight over mine. No point trying, and failing, to poke holes in my argument to take yourself out of the spotlight.

I never said that my opinion was a fact, just that it holds more ground than yours.

 

[ThreeX]

In other news, retro is madd annoying xD

 

[Pluvia]

Wow, you were actually being serious. Unbelievable.

I can voice my opinion freely, for example, Mass Effect 2 is hands down the greatest game on Xbox. You don't have to agree with that, you can also think that it's stupid to voice your opinions on things without, what is it, trying to convince people to believe it? But here's the kicker:

Spoiler

THAT'S YOUR OPINION!

So now that we've both said our opinions, lets get back to what this is all about, you showing everyone who is reading this that your opinion has weight over mine.

Ready, GO!

 

[F8AL]

Pluvia and MuraRengan, take your argument/debate/whatever to VMs. Only verbal warning I'm giving you guys.

 

[MuraRengan]

*sigh* Knew eventually we'd be sent to VMs, so much for making an important point. I'm not a big fan of blowing up people's walls with arguments, so I'll just sent a PM.

In other, on-topic, news, I've stopped playing the beta. Higher-level play is all camp, which isn't fun at all.

 

[ThreeX]

In other, on-topic, news, I've stopped playing the beta. Higher-level play is all camp, which isn't fun at all.

That's gears man, it's about map control :\

in my opinion you really need a full solid team to really enjoy this game. My main complaint is the ef'n retro though. The more and more I play, the more I get frustrated because of that thing. Idk what they could do. Tone down the damage? Increase the reticle bloom?

 

[MuraRengan]

I stopped playing Execution in Gears 2 because it was too campy, then started playing Annex. Most fun I've ever had because players have to actually be well rounded in order to do well. Can't be too campy, but you can't be to offensive either.

But even with a full team I wasn't enjoying the beta. I played with my friends alot, but either the match wasn't challenging, or the match was too campy. I'll probably have more fun with it during KotH week, but Epic's going to have to do a lot to make this game not campy. There's so many things about the beta that encourage camping, it's like they wanted it to be that way. It could be that they do, IDK, but if the final product is as campy is it is right now, I won't play it for too long.

 

[ThreeX]

Epic said that since Gow2, they want gears to be more of a tactical shooter, they didn't like how Gow1 turned out. Which was the reason they added stopped power, smoke grenade rag doll etc.

 

[The Real Gamer]

It's gonna take Epic a while to balance GoW3 out as well as GoW2 is at the moment... Even after the release IMO.

 

[MuraRengan]

Epic said that since Gow2, they want gears to be more of a tactical shooter, they didn't like how Gow1 turned out. Which was the reason they added stopped power, smoke grenade rag doll etc.

I wonder if there's a difference between a tactical shooter and a campy shooter. I felt that Gears 2 achieved tactical play, but most Epic forum members disagree because players could use offensive tactics. I hope Epic knows what it's doing, because if Gears 3 is too campy the majority of its fanbase will drop it. I'm looking forward to a good laugh, because I think even the campers will get bored and complain.

 

[ThreeX]

I feel like you're bashing on a play style, just because you don't like it.. not to start another argument but once again, when those type of weapons (ARs) are THAT strong, you do what you do to win, especially in a game type without spawns, or atleast with limited spawns. Just so happens that those are the most played game types, and are used in competitive game play.

 

[MuraRengan]

Yeah, that is what I'm doing. I guess I'm a bit salty because it appears that Epic has chosen a side on the whole "tactics" vs. "shotgun" conflict that everyone seems to think exists. What I'm afraid of is that Epic is listening to the people who post on the forums. The people there are a majority crowd of people who want the game to be campy. I think Epic has adopted their campy definition of "tactics", and is making the game centered around that kind of tactic, which is camping. But the problem is, the people on the forums don't represent the feelings of the majority of people who play the game. The general population enjoys the fast-paced, skillful gameplay. That consists not only of lone-wolf shotgun rushers, but also of versatile players who have dedicated a lot of time to mastering every tactic and weapon of the game, like myself. The former, as I've seen, tend to become the latter after awhile. But if Epic centers its Gears 3 approach around the opinions of the forum members, the game will alienate the majority of its fans (which is why it is important to assess the validity *cougharguecough*of opinions). Playing to win is ok, but if winning isn't even fun people will eventually stop playing. If the ARs and game mechanics force camping, people will quit, because, I believe, the majority of gears players don't like camping.

Good thing I still have Melee.

 

[Pluvia]

And if people hate camping, they'll just play objective game types that force you to move around the map to win.

 

[Wretched]

Or just one player. Then everyone can camp AROUND THE OBJECTIVE. :DDD

 

[Pluvia]

In the new Annex/KOTH hybrid the objective moves around the map. You can move with it but you'll be letting the other team get all the power weapons.

Plus guarding the objective is the entire point of the game, you don't run around like a headless chicken just because the other team is too stupid to pick up the power weapons that'll help them get the objective.

 

[MuraRengan]

His point's still valid. KotH is still pretty campy in Gears 3 (yes, I have played it) because you have to guard the objectives. This does vary from map to map: Thrashball is still incredibly campy because of the stands, Checkout is still very campy, most of Old Town's objective spots are campy, Trenches is fine (by far the only balanced map IMO).

The reason why people are inclined to camp is because combined AR is too powerful (Thrashball), and even if you do get close enough to kill someone in cover, they'll just mantle as you slide to cover (Checkout and Old Town.) Even though KotH is a movement based gametype, the game itself still gives too much power to stationary players. The only weapons that really help are Frag Grenades, Boomshot, Torque, Mulch, Mortar, and Snipe, but it doesn't really matter because not every map has those, and there's still the issue of enemies getting them or killing you as you get them.

Even troubling is the fact that they changed the ink. Ink was the #1 camp buster for KotH/Annex in Gears 2 because of it's spread, but it doesn't work like that anymore.

I understand that there will be more stages and that those stages might be better suited for KotH, but with AR power, the sawed-off, and warzone rules people aren't going to want to get into close combat.