Gears of War 3

[ThreeX]

How are symmetrical maps unbalanced? :|

 

[Wretched]

They aren't necessarily unbalanced as in one team has an advantage because it has a better side, but rather the spacing of the power weapons and the dynamic build of the maps is undesirable.

 

[ThreeX]

So then what makes Checkout or Thrashball unbalanced?

 

[MuraRengan]

On thrashball the team that captures the stands will pretty much win, because they don't have to go anywhere, can look over the entire map and see where people are going, and has the upstairs advantage.

On checkout, the team that captures the digger/sniper has the advantage those weapons give long-range attack ability, there's lots of cover, and the incindiary/ink looks right over grenades and a large portion of the map.

Those maps are unbalanced because they have camping spots that give one team an advantage over a large amount of space, especially bacause of the warzone rules. The other team will have a very tough time killing the people in those areas.

 

[ThreeX]

On thrashball the team that captures the stands will pretty much win, because they don't have to go anywhere, can look over the entire map and see where people are going, and has the upstairs advantage.

On checkout, the team that captures the digger/sniper has the advantage those weapons give long-range attack ability, there's lots of cover, and the incindiary/ink looks right over grenades and a large portion of the map.

Those maps are unbalanced because they have camping spots that give one team an advantage over a large amount of space, especially bacause of the warzone rules. The other team will have a very tough time killing the people in those areas.

When a certain area is THAT strong, isn't that a good enough reason to go try and take control of it? Shouldn't the team that successfully captures that area, have some type of advantage? I understand that warzone rules makes it harder, I'm with you on that.. i hate warzone rules.. but IMO that doesn't make a map "unbalanced"

I think thrashball is similar to security, since going up top to a balcony leads to a strong point in the map. Do you think security was an unbalanced map? Blood drive had a upper staircase ppl could camp, but for both spawns.


Edit: also.. digger/torque can HELP you win the balcony


btw, I guess trenches is back on the playlist

 

[MuraRengan]

The problem is that winning the spot isn't always guaranteed, and has a lot to do with chance. Lets be honest, no average team will have a formula to win the top spot 100% of the time, and even if a team is skillful, there's tons of variables that could cause a loss or a win there in the first run. Unless a team is decisively better than another team, winning the top spot at thrashball has a huge element of chance.

Disregarding that, the stage is still unbalanced because the top spot is so strong, and player on the opposing team have to put themselves at a serious disadvantage just to make the game playable. That's just not fair. Players on the opposing team could just as easily decide not to go after the team camping in the stands, but the team in the stands has the advantage of being able to look over the entire map and lancer/hb down. So the only choice of the opposing team is to try to take the spot back, but that puts them at a serious disadvantage from the get-go. Maps shouldn't be designed to where one spot forces an entire team to play at a disadvantage. Thrashball makes the only option for survival to capture the stands.

Digger and torque barely make a difference because the team in the stands can easily choose to shoot the scoreboard down.

 

[Pluvia]

So the moral of the story is capture the stands. The better team will capture it, the better team will keep it, and the better team will win.

 

[MuraRengan]

More like, whoever is lucky enough to capture the stands will win. I say luck because if we were to run a test of two random teams attempting to capture the stands several times, the result would not be the same team capturing it every time. This is because capturing the spot, as is in every encounter in the game , has an element of chance that depends on specific decisions players make and increases depending on how little of a skill gap there is between the two teams. For equal teams, there is more chance to affect the skill, for unequal teams, there is less chance meaning skill will be more likely to prevail.

You know what makes up a good team? Good players. But good players are still individual people, and individual people are capable of making mistakes. One mistake in capturing the stands in thrashball can cause the entire spot to be lost. One player failing to revive a teammate, or failing to observe a flank, or something as common as missing one shot can cost the entire spot. This does not respresent a fault of the entire team, but a fault of an individual player. Furthermore, it is a fault that is likely to not happen consistently. However, you're implying that such an instance would make the entire team inferior to the other and not deserving of the spot, but that's putting too much reliance on player perfection, and removes the pre-supposed element of teamwork.

My point is, capturing the stands on thrashball (or any other camp spot) relies so heavily on player perfection that it's unfair to call a failure to capture a spot a team fault worthy of playing at a disadvantage for an entire round.

Furthermore, it still stands that no one spot should give a team such a staggering advantage over another because it creates a situation where one team has to work excessively hard to win, whereas another has to work considerably less. This creates a very difficult situation for a team who would be otherwise equal in ability to the other team if not for the stands, and an impossible situation for an already inferior team.

So to reword your statement, in balanced matches, the lucky team captures the hill, the lucky team keeps it because the unlucky team can't fight against the overwhelming disadvantage, and the lucky team will win.

In unbalanced matches, the better team will capture it, the other team doesn't stand a chance in hell.

 

[ThreeX]

Chance? wtf? What pluvia said.. The better team wins. No luck there.


With your logic, I guess professionals in any sport/game are just "lucky". I'm done with this theory of war ****, it's getting out of hand. Play the game how you want to play it, hopefully you'll understand soon enough that gow2+3 isn't the run and gun game-play that you desire

 

[WindMajor]

Skill can be tested on two levels: physical performance and mental performance.

If you're able to formulate a winning strategy that'll guarantee the top, and that will let you keep the top, then you deserve the top.
If you're able to physically push the right buttons and perform your part of the plan, that's another reason why you deserve the top.

Each encounter is a test of both of those skills, and most mistakes are at the fault of the player. Each encounter is different, and it's up to the player to adapt to each unique situation, by making the right moves and hit the right buttons, so they can reduce mistakes.

Mistakes are inevitable. Every good action that you do can be considered as a mistake that the other player made. This is practically what makes every game. Since humans are capable of making mistakes, it is key that players are able to punish mistakes that others make. On that note, the fact that humans are capable of making mistakes is also the reason why the best player or team won't always win. I'm clearly better than my brother at Gears of War, but if I keep on making silly mistakes at critical moments (lets say.... by accidentally switching to the snub while in a battle), my brother can stag a win from me. All that says though is that he was a better player than me at that moment, aka I got outplayed.



Anyways, I don't think the maps are unbalanced. I agree that there are power positions, but they're equidistant to both team spawns, and each team has the same opportunity to control the position. Also, tools to take over the power position are scattered throughout the map, all it takes someone with the right hands to get the ball rolling, as well as good teamwork to strengthen the push.

 

[MuraRengan]

Skill can be tested on two levels: physical performance and mental performance.

If you're able to formulate a winning strategy that'll guarantee the top, and that will let you keep the top, then you deserve the top.
If you're able to physically push the right buttons and perform your part of the plan, that's another reason why you deserve the top.

Each encounter is a test of both of those skills, and most mistakes are at the fault of the player. Each encounter is different, and it's up to the player to adapt to each unique situation, by making the right moves and hit the right buttons, so they can reduce mistakes.

Mistakes are inevitable. Every good action that you do can be considered as a mistake that the other player made. This is practically what makes every game. Since humans are capable of making mistakes, it is key that players are able to punish mistakes that others make. On that note, the fact that humans are capable of making mistakes is also the reason why the best player or team won't always win. I'm clearly better than my brother at Gears of War, but if I keep on making silly mistakes at critical moments (lets say.... by accidentally switching to the snub while in a battle), my brother can stag a win from me. All that says though is that he was a better player than me at that moment, aka I got outplayed. [/COLOR]

Wretched worded this point better than I did, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. The relationship between good and bad decisions depends on the actions of the individuals of both teams, and just one of those can cause the loss of the entire spot. Singular individual mistakes shouldn't cost a team a game when the game is supposed to be about team ability.

Where me and Wretched differ is on the power to take those spots back. On round 1 of Thrashball the only available weapon to push for the stands is the incendiary grenade, which, honestly doesn't do much. The digger doesn't really matter because the capturing team will almost always shoot down the scoreboard. On the second round, there's only grenades, which are good, but still are at the disadvantage of having the other team able to watch your every move.

Holding the spot against an opponent is very easy when you're upstairs. One upstairs can hold off two downstairs (especially with the retro the way it is) because of the virtue of being behind the corner. You can watch everything the opponent is doing as they approach, see what weapons they have, and see how many are coming. But an invading team member is intentionally moving out of the safety of cover, has no idea how many people are watching and waiting for him to approach, and has no idea what weapons they have. This is too difficult of a situation, and is why camp spots make maps unbalanced.

 

[Wretched]

Oh, I believe that a good team can take a spot back.
Often times, though, good teams know how to control the maps through seemingly random map control points. If this is the case, and a team does get into a pattern of controlling a map a certain way, the other team will probably be done before they figure things out.
I think, situationally, that if a team of randoms without a plan circumstantially happens to control very important areas for silly reasons, that the other team can make an easy comeback. The only thing that makes me doubt this in most situations is the likeliness of a team of randoms controlling an area well, compared to a team of players who work together with a plan.

 

[MuraRengan]

Of course a good enough team can take a spot back, but it requires that team be substantially more skilled than the other team to overcome the disadvantage. But that's unfair because in that instace the map creates an undeserved burden on one team and an undeserved virtue for another. Furthermore, it's not exacly reflecting true team competition if one team has an advantage the whole time.

 

[WindMajor]

Wretched worded this point better than I did, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. The relationship between good and bad decisions depends on the actions of the individuals of both teams, and just one of those can cause the loss of the entire spot. Singular individual mistakes shouldn't cost a team a game when the game is supposed to be about team ability.

I don't agree with this at all. A team is made up of 5 individuals, and each individual should be playing a specific role in their team's strategy. Each player is supposed to be able to adapt to their situation and surroundings and try to carry out the plan to the best of their ability. If someone ran into an enemy or something, makes a mistake and doesn't do their job, that means that your team ability lacked somewhere because someone failed to do their job correctly, and the other team now has an area of punish that your team mates will have to adapt and fill in for.

The game is based on punishing mistakes on a player by player basis, if someone screws up and you lose your position for it, then so be it.

Where me and Wretched differ is on the power to take those spots back. On round 1 of Thrashball the only available weapon to push for the stands is the incendiary grenade, which, honestly doesn't do much. The digger doesn't really matter because the capturing team will almost always shoot down the scoreboard. On the second round, there's only grenades, which are good, but still are at the disadvantage of having the other team able to watch your every move.

What tools does the other team have to maintain their position? They have a gorgon pistol, and a mulcher/mortar. Grenades and a digger launcher are seriously good enough to make an approach on the team on the stands with the right strategy. Mulcher is easy since the guy can only aim at one person at a time. If you have a second member, just tell him to run to one of the stairs and shoot the mulcher down from there. Same with the mortar, which is very telegraphed, so you should be avoiding anyways.

The team in the bottom has the tools to combat the guys in the upstairs, all that's required is good team work.

Holding the spot against an opponent is very easy when you're upstairs. One upstairs can hold off two downstairs (especially with the retro the way it is) because of the virtue of being behind the corner. You can watch everything the opponent is doing as they approach, see what weapons they have, and see how many are coming. But an invading team member is intentionally moving out of the safety of cover, has no idea how many people are watching and waiting for him to approach, and has no idea what weapons they have. This is too difficult of a situation, and is why camp spots make maps unbalanced.

Camp spots give teams the advantage they deserve, since they were able to take control of it before the other team could. The guys that are left on the bottom have tools to approach and gain the upper position. The map isn't unbalanced, it just has power positions.

Of course a good enough team can take a spot back, but it requires that team be substantially more skilled than the other team to overcome the disadvantage. But that's unfair because in that instace the map creates an undeserved burden on one team and an undeserved virtue for another.

When someone is at a disadvantaged position, it's obvious that they're going to have to work harder to change the flow of the game. Saying that obtaining a good position is undeserving when you had to compete for it is false. Being put at a disadvantageous position is indeed a burden, but who's fault is that?

Furthermore, it's not exacly reflecting true team competition if one team has an advantage the whole time.

They will never have the advantage the whole time. There's always that first push that one has to make to claim that position.

 

[MuraRengan]

I don't agree with this at all. A team is made up of 5 individuals, and each individual should be playing a specific role in their team's strategy. Each player is supposed to be able to adapt to their situation and surroundings and try to carry out the plan to the best of their ability. If someone ran into an enemy or something, makes a mistake and doesn't do their job, that means that your team ability lacked somewhere because someone failed to do their job correctly, and the other team now has an area of punish that your team mates will have to adapt and fill in for.

The game is based on punishing mistakes on a player by player basis, if someone screws up and you lose your position for it, then so be it.

The red is what I essentially take issue with. One person's mistake does not reflect on an entire team. Just as you said, mistakes are inevitable, but a single person's mistake doesn't mean that one team is better than another and deserves to have a huge advantage. That's absolutely ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of saying that since I'm a better player than most people I should win every 1v1 battle. It's not going to happen like that because there are too many variables, and eventually I will make a mistake and lose one. Does that make me a worse player than the one that beat me? Hell no. You can't judge a team's worth with one mistake, and you can't honestly say that one team is better than another because of the results of one encounter where an individual/s was/were at fault. The only true way to know this is to repeat the process several times and see which team wins most often, but that's not how stages like Thrashball work.

What tools does the other team have to maintain their position? They have a gorgon pistol, and a mulcher/mortar. Grenades and a digger launcher are seriously good enough to make an approach on the team on the stands with the right strategy. Mulcher is easy since the guy can only aim at one person at a time. If you have a second member, just tell him to run to one of the stairs and shoot the mulcher down from there. Same with the mortar, which is very telegraphed, so you should be avoiding anyways.

The team in the bottom has the tools to combat the guys in the upstairs, all that's required is good team work.

Once again, the digger doesn't really matter because the team in the stands can shoot down the scoreboard. Even if the team gets the digger, it's still a laughably easy weapon to evade, the only way you can really catch someone with it is if they're not [paying attention (which the team in the stands will most certainly be) or if someone else pressures an opponent into rolling and he rolls in the way of the digger (which isn't easy to do.) Incendiary grenades aren't very good at all. The only real threat is frags, but the team in the stands can still see the entire map, meaning they can watch where the frags are going and lancer/hb him down if he ever leaves cover.

Meanwhile, the mulcher can down people twice as fast as a hb/lancer without any real reload interruption and no safe way to stop it. Mortar can strike ANY POINT ON THE MAP, including grenades because the splash explosion reaches in there. And the team in the stands still has the overwhelming advantage of being difficult to approach, being able to see the entire map, and being able to kill without having to execute the opponent because of warzone rules. The team in the stands has virtually all the power aside from frag grenades, which exist only in one round and can still be pretty easily stopped.

They will never have the advantage the whole time. There's always that first push that one has to make to claim that position.

Lets not do the semantics. The fact is, after the spot is taken (which takes about 45 seconds) the rest of the match is played from the stands, which, for all intents and purposes, is the whole time.

I've pretty much made my case for the omitted replies.

 

[WindMajor]

Pardon if I worded something wrong, it's really late. If you get the point I'm trying to make, just go with that.

The red is what I essentially take issue with. One person's mistake does not reflect on an entire team.

Ummm.... yes it does?

If a guy is a member of your team, that means that he represents your team. Anything he does affects your team, and reflects on your team's image. If he messes up and it costs the game, that means that the team as a whole didn't perform adequately enough to win.

Just as you said, mistakes are inevitable, but a single person's mistake doesn't mean that one team is better than another and deserves to have a huge advantage. That's absolutely ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of saying that since I'm a better player than most people I should win every 1v1 battle. It's not going to happen like that because there are too many variables, and eventually I will make a mistake and lose one. Does that make me a worse player than the one that beat me? Hell no. You can't judge a team's worth with one mistake, and you can't honestly say that one team is better than another because of the results of one encounter where an individual/s was/were at fault. The only true way to know this is to repeat the process several times and see which team wins most often, but that's not how stages like Thrashball work.

Like I said before, if a player messes up and they lose because of it, it doesn't make the other team better, it just means that they outplayed you at that moment. If they get a huge advantage over a little mistake, then so be it. Getting huge rewards for little mistakes is very common in Gears of War, due to the nature of the gameplay.

Once again, the digger doesn't really matter because the team in the stands can shoot down the scoreboard. Even if the team gets the digger, it's still a laughably easy weapon to evade, the only way you can really catch someone with it is if they're not [paying attention (which the team in the stands will most certainly be) or if someone else pressures an opponent into rolling and he rolls in the way of the digger (which isn't easy to do.) Incendiary grenades aren't very good at all. The only real threat is frags, but the team in the stands can still see the entire map, meaning they can watch where the frags are going and lancer/hb him down if he ever leaves cover.

Meanwhile, the mulcher can down people twice as fast as a hb/lancer without any real reload interruption and no safe way to stop it. Mortar can strike ANY POINT ON THE MAP, including grenades because the splash explosion reaches in there. And the team in the stands still has the overwhelming advantage of being difficult to approach, being able to see the entire map, and being able to kill without having to execute the opponent because of warzone rules. The team in the stands has virtually all the power aside from frag grenades, which exist only in one round and can still be pretty easily stopped.

You don't have to use weapons purely for killing. You can use weapons to clear space you know.

Tell me, how do you evade a digger launcher, or any type of grenade?
.
.
.
You do it by moving away from where it's going to hit. In other words, if there's a spot where I want to go to, but people are at that spot, I could use one of those weapons to make them move out of the way so my team can approach.

Lets say I'm at the bottom of the stairs with my team, and the other team is waiting for me at the high corner of the stairs. I could synchronize an approach with that newly acquired space I just cleared with either of those two weapons, since they had to move away to avoid them. Once I'm up there, I'm at a position where I can take over the top.

Obviously, every situation is unique, so I'm leaving the above paragraph intentionally vague. The most important part is that your team is able to adapt to each of the unique specifications of the match such as player positioning and whatnot while following the vague game plan I wrote up.

Lets not do the semantics. The fact is, after the spot is taken (which takes about 45 seconds) the rest of the match is played from the stands, which, for all intents and purposes, is the whole time.

Well don't intentionally leave out the most important part. The first 45 seconds of the match are what's going to decide how the flow of the match is going to go. Each team starts off with equal chances to the most important aspects of the map. Both teams have equal chances to acquire the digger, the grenades, the stands, the mulcher/mortar, etc. This moment is critical in other words, and the fact that each team has equal chances balances it out. The advantage goes to whoever earns it, but the capability of losing that advantage is still present.

 

[Wretched]

This is TL;DR.
In other news, I can't wait until Monday.
I'm going to play the **** out of the beta.

 

[MuraRengan]

Ummm.... yes it does?

If a guy is a member of your team, that means that he represents your team. Anything he does affects your team, and reflects on your team's image. If he messes up and it costs the game, that means that the team as a whole didn't perform adequately enough to win.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Restating the same logic again doesn't change my mind, especially considering how you didn't even address the logic I countered with.

Like I said before, if a player messes up and they lose because of it, it doesn't make the other team better, it just means that they outplayed you at that moment. If they get a huge advantage over a little mistake, then so be it. Getting huge rewards for little mistakes is very common in Gears of War, due to the nature of the gameplay.

A team should NEVER win an entire match because of one moment where they outplayed the other team. This defeats the entire purpose of team competition. I'd hope that you agree that the better team should be the victor, and that the ideal competitive environment should make it so that the better team will win. But stages like thrashball are not such an environment because one moment of combat can decide an entire match and does not foster a competitive environment where a team wins because they were better. It provides an environment where they win because they outplayed another team at a specific moment, regardless of whether or not they are better than the other team. That's not ideal team competition.

You don't have to use weapons purely for killing. You can use weapons to clear space you know.

Tell me, how do you evade a digger launcher, or any type of grenade?
.
.
.
You do it by moving away from where it's going to hit. In other words, if there's a spot where I want to go to, but people are at that spot, I could use one of those weapons to make them move out of the way so my team can approach.

Except, as I've said about 3 times now, teams probably are very unlikely to even have the digger because the team in the stands will shoot the scoreboard down.

And this situation you're setting up is assuming that the team in the stands even lets you get that close to the stairs, because there are several spots to hb/lancer from which make it difficult.

Lets say I'm at the bottom of the stairs with my team, and the other team is waiting for me at the high corner of the stairs. I could synchronize an approach with that newly acquired space I just cleared with either of those two weapons, since they had to move away to avoid them. Once I'm up there, I'm at a position where I can take over the top.

Once again, this entire plan could be stopped at the beginning because an opposing team member could easily shoot you down from the sides, forcing you out of cover and away from the stairs.

Obviously, every situation is unique, so I'm leaving the above paragraph intentionally vague. The most important part is that your team is able to adapt to each of the unique specifications of the match such as player positioning and whatnot while following the vague game plan I wrote up.

Your gameplan underestimates the power of being in the stands.

Well don't intentionally leave out the most important part. The first 45 seconds of the match are what's going to decide how the flow of the match is going to go. Each team starts off with equal chances to the most important aspects of the map. Both teams have equal chances to acquire the digger, the grenades, the stands, the mulcher/mortar, etc. This moment is critical in other words, and the fact that each team has equal chances balances it out. The advantage goes to whoever earns it, but the capability of losing that advantage is still present.

The equality for 45 seconds doesn't balance out the entire map. After the stands are taken, one team fights an uphill battle, and the other fights a downhill battle. Balance is when both teams have equal opportunities FOR THE WHOLE MATCH, not just the beginning, and especially not when one team can gain an advantage from just one encounter.

 

[smash brawl player 99021]

This is TL;DR.
In other news, I can't wait until Monday.
I'm going to play the **** out of the beta.

Right there with you sir.

You other guys are annoying as hell, just throwing that out there.

 

[Fuelbi]

I'm also there with you guys

And seriously, you other guys are annoying the hell out of me as well.

 

[MuraRengan]

The opinions of people who can't handle serious discussion mean nothing to me.

 

[Wretched]

Awww c'mon, its okay if they debate guys.
I was just saying that it didn't particularly capture my interest to read a giant wall of text responding to a giant wall of text responding to a giant wall of text

 

[WindMajor]

Don't worry guys, you don't have to read my walls of text. Just play the beta. It's awesome!

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. Restating the same logic again doesn't change my mind, especially considering how you didn't even address the logic I countered with.

Well if I didn't convince you there, then I guess I'm not going to. I think that the actions of one player reflect on the entire team. My reasoning? Because it obviously does. If you didn't see how already, then you probably won't see it after I explain it again.

A team should NEVER win an entire match because of one moment where they outplayed the other team.

If that's the case, then matches should never be decided by sudden death.

This defeats the entire purpose of team competition. I'd hope that you agree that the better team should be the victor,

Yes.....

and that the ideal competitive environment should make it so that the better team will win.

The ideal competitive environment should make it so that both teams have equal chances at winning.

But stages like thrashball are not such an environment because one moment of combat can decide an entire match and does not foster a competitive environment where a team wins because they were better. It provides an environment where they win because they outplayed another team at a specific moment, regardless of whether or not they are better than the other team. That's not ideal team competition.

And God forbid that a team earned an advantageous position, right? By outplaying their opponents aka being better than them?

The game starts off with both teams having equal access to everything. If both teams were good, they would know what to do from the start, and they will play smart in order to gain their advantage, since they know that the first 45 seconds are critical. If they lose advantageous ground because they failed to beat the other team, then who's fault is that? It's the player's, obviously. They got outplayed. It happens. If your team is so much better, then you should be able to take the top in an instant.

You want it so that the better team will always win, but what you fail to realize is that the better team isn't always the same team. Everything is at the spur of the moment, and it's up to the team to perform well ESPECIALLY in critical moments like the first 45 seconds in which there's no room for error.

You and another guy are having a shotgun duel at the top of the stands to decide who gets control over it, and you accidentally miss a melee, and die for it. Who's fault is that?

You rush to a certain position but explode due to a proximity mine because you didn't check your corners. Who's fault is that?

You try to throw some fire grenades across the room but end up throwing it at the cover in front of you because you flicked your fingers the wrong way. Who's fault is that?

In a more extreme case, you're in the middle of this intense shotgun battle and your controller's batteries die. Who's fault is that? Nobody told you to play with a controller with no batteries.


My point? Little details in gameplay can decide a match, especially in a game like Gears of War where the price to pay for mistakes is usually death. That's why I put so much emphasis on "in the moment". Since the price to pay for simple mistakes and being outplayed is almost always death, matches can fluctuate between winners over the simplest details, which is why the "best team" isn't always the same one. The best team is the one that's able to outperform the other team and win a match, but even then, it's just for that moment. If you make a wrong move, it's your fault, so you should suffer the consequences for it. Since you represent your team, your team should suffer from those consequences since it was probably their poor decision to send you to do a job you couldn't do and because they're gonna have to deal with your failure directly. The better team is the team that's able to reduce the most mistakes, by successfully carrying out better individual strategies. If their strategy beats yours, it's your fault for coming up with a plan that didn't work. What's important is that players can be at equal ground at at least one moment in the match (in this case, the very beginning, which is desirable) so that they can have an even chance to outperform their opponent and earn whatever weapon or spot they deserve. What's also important is that the players that are at a disadvantage have options to counter the players that have the advantage, hence the grenade and digger spawns.

Except, as I've said about 3 times now, teams probably are very unlikely to even have the digger because the team in the stands will shoot the scoreboard down.

Unlikely yes, but the option is still there, so it's worth discussing.

And this situation you're setting up is assuming that the team in the stands even lets you get that close to the stairs, because there are several spots to hb/lancer from which make it difficult.

Difficult but not impossible.

Once again, this entire plan could be stopped at the beginning because an opposing team member could easily shoot you down from the sides, forcing you out of cover and away from the stairs.

Keyword being could, not always. Again, if the possibility is there, then one should take it assuming it's worth taking. It might be difficult, but it's not impossible.

Your gameplan underestimates the power of being in the stands.

Your arguments suggest that being positioned on the stands with your team means that you're immune to good teamwork and combat.

The equality for 45 seconds doesn't balance out the entire map. After the stands are taken, one team fights an uphill battle, and the other fights a downhill battle. Balance is when both teams have equal opportunities FOR THE WHOLE MATCH, not just the beginning, and especially not when one team can gain an advantage from just one encounter.

Balance means that every strategy, weapon, or area can be effective, but on the other hand, have vulnerabilities that can be abused depending on the situation. All that matters is that players are even at the start, and that any strategy in the match can be countered.

 

[ElDominio]

To all the whiny "you guys are pissing me off":

Gears is a team based game, with team strategies being highly important, and if no one discusses them, there's no development. Game dies.
So instead of the game dying, you should.

TO MuraRengan:

I ask you, is there an "I" in "Team", or "Teamwork" for that matter?

TWiNK CONSTANTLY fails at covering the STUPID staircases, and we constantly get pushed off the concession stands. We usually lose those rounds, and I rage at him since he sucks.

But it's the teams fault... for having someone as crappy as TWiNK cover the stairs. He failed, hence we all failed, the basis of teamwork.

 

[WindMajor]

Man I'm being thrown under the bus so hard right now.

 

[MuraRengan]

Well if I didn't convince you there, then I guess I'm not going to. I think that the actions of one player reflect on the entire team. My reasoning? Because it obviously does. If you didn't see how already, then you probably won't see it after I explain it again.

I'd still like you to address my counterargument to this point, which was:

The red is what I essentially take issue with. One person's mistake does not reflect on an entire team. Just as you said, mistakes are inevitable, but a single person's mistake doesn't mean that one team is better than another and deserves to have a huge advantage. That's absolutely ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of saying that since I'm a better player than most people I should win every 1v1 battle. It's not going to happen like that because there are too many variables, and eventually I will make a mistake and lose one. Does that make me a worse player than the one that beat me? Hell no. You can't judge a team's worth with one mistake, and you can't honestly say that one team is better than another because of the results of one encounter where an individual/s was/were at fault. The only true way to know this is to repeat the process several times and see which team wins most often, but that's not how stages like Thrashball work.

I'll summarize my point: Just as a better player can make a mistake and lose in an encounter, a better team can make a mistake lose in an encounter. The better team will ultimately win in more encounters, as long as the playing conditions are fair and equal.

If that's the case, then matches should never be decided by sudden death.

Once a match reaches sudden death, I don't consider it to be a team battle anymore. The winner of the match is the player who kills the other player; teamwork has nothign to do with sudden death.

The ideal competitive environment should make it so that both teams have equal chances at winning.

I agree with this, except I would add that the equal chances should remain throughout the duration of the match.

And God forbid that a team earned an advantageous position, right? By outplaying their opponents aka being better than them?

Winning one encounter barely counts as earning a huge advantage that stifles the competition's ability to eve compete. This standard might be fine for the power an individual weapon, but the power to control an entire map shouldn't be left to one encounter.

The game starts off with both teams having equal access to everything. If both teams were good, they would know what to do from the start, and they will play smart in order to gain their advantage, since they know that the first 45 seconds are critical. If they lose advantageous ground because they failed to beat the other team, then who's fault is that? It's the player's, obviously. They got outplayed. It happens. If your team is so much better, then you should be able to take the top in an instant.

We've already established that even a good team can make a mistake, and disregarding degrees of team skill, it is entirely possible that a better team can lose a spot because of a mistake.

You want it so that the better team will always win, but what you fail to realize is that the better team isn't always the same team. Everything is at the spur of the moment, and it's up to the team to perform well ESPECIALLY in critical moments like the first 45 seconds in which there's no room for error.

I disagree, the better team WILL always be the same team BECAUSE of the players on that team's abilities to handle and execute spur-of-the-moment encounters better than the other team on a general basis. Meaning, the better team will win the majority of encounters, but never will that team win them all because mistakes can and will be made eventually.

You and another guy are having a shotgun duel at the top of the stands to decide who gets control over it, and you accidentally miss a melee, and die for it. Who's fault is that?

You rush to a certain position but explode due to a proximity mine because you didn't check your corners. Who's fault is that?

You try to throw some fire grenades across the room but end up throwing it at the cover in front of you because you flicked your fingers the wrong way. Who's fault is that?

In a more extreme case, you're in the middle of this intense shotgun battle and your controller's batteries die. Who's fault is that? Nobody told you to play with a controller with no batteries.

My point? Little details in gameplay can decide a match, especially in a game like Gears of War where the price to pay for mistakes is usually death. That's why I put so much emphasis on "in the moment". Since the price to pay for simple mistakes and being outplayed is almost always death, matches can fluctuate between winners over the simplest details, which is why the "best team" isn't always the same one. The best team is the one that's able to outperform the other team and win a match, but even then, it's just for that moment. If you make a wrong move, it's your fault, so you should suffer the consequences for it. Since you represent your team, your team should suffer from those consequences since it was probably their poor decision to send you to do a job you couldn't do and because they're gonna have to deal with your failure directly. The better team is the team that's able to reduce the most mistakes, by successfully carrying out better individual strategies. If their strategy beats yours, it's your fault for coming up with a plan that didn't work. What's important is that players can be at equal ground at at least one moment in the match (in this case, the very beginning, which is desirable) so that they can have an even chance to outperform their opponent and earn whatever weapon or spot they deserve. What's also important is that the players that are at a disadvantage have options to counter the players that have the advantage, hence the grenade and digger spawns.

I have no problem with any of this except the red. Equal playing ground should exist at ALL times. Meaning if a team gets an advantage, the other team should have equal ability fo fight that advantage, which doesn't exist on Thrashball.

Unlikely yes, but the option is still there, so it's worth discussing.

Discussing theory is a lot different from actual play. It's find to think about what a digger COULD be used for, but if it's not likely to happen in reality, it's not really worth discussing.

Difficult but not impossible.

The point is, it shouldn't be difficult if the players are at equal playing ground. In this situation, one team has to achieve a difficult task to win, while, simultaneously, the other has to achieve an easy task. The team with the easy task is going to win more often than not, but this doesn't represent which team is better, it represents the unfortunate consequences of unequal playing conditions.

Keyword being could, not always. Again, if the possibility is there, then one should take it assuming it's worth taking. It might be difficult, but it's not impossible.

The reason why I say "could" is because I can't speak for the actions of every team out there. If I were speaking about one of my groups of friend I'd say "always" because we never forget to watch the sides and see where people are coming from. The point is, if you can end up being able to take the spot, it's likely because the team upstairs was negligent, not because you were good enough to overcome the odds. Against any good team, you're not getting that spot back.

Your arguments suggest that being positioned on the stands with your team means that you're immune to good teamwork and combat.

Immune to a high degree, though not completely. Remember, even teams in the stands can have good teamwork and combat, and when I do the math "good teamwork and combat" + huge advantage > "good teamwork and combat"

Balance means that every strategy, weapon, or area can be effective, but on the other hand, have vulnerabilities that can be abused depending on the situation. All that matters is that players are even at the start, and that any strategy in the match can be countered.

Yes, and stages like Thrashball do NOT fit this definition of balance. Other strategies, weapons, and areas are NOT effective because the stadium spot dwarfs them all out. Other areas are useless because the stands can see everywhere. Other weapons are useless because the stands can shoot from everywhere, preventing those weapons from being put to good use.

TO MuraRengan:

I ask you, is there an "I" in "Team", or "Teamwork" for that matter?

TWiNK CONSTANTLY fails at covering the STUPID staircases, and we constantly get pushed off the concession stands. We usually lose those rounds, and I rage at him since he sucks.

But it's the teams fault... for having someone as crappy as TWiNK cover the stairs. He failed, hence we all failed, the basis of teamwork.

There's a huge difference between constant failure and occasional failure. It's the teams fault if they pick a player who is known for repeatedly failing to do things properly, but it's not the team's fault if they pick a person who has a reputation for being a good player capable of making good decisions and executing them properly, but he messes up one time and dies. A team can't account for every single action that anothe player can make, but it can account for actions that the player is expected to make.

 

[smash brawl player 99021]

The opinions of people who can't handle serious discussion mean nothing to me.

Holy **** you're a douche.

Awww c'mon, its okay if they debate guys.
I was just saying that it didn't particularly capture my interest to read a giant wall of text responding to a giant wall of text responding to a giant wall of text

loooooooooool wretched. We're playing the Beta together, man.

 

[WindMajor]

I'd still like you to address my counterargument to this point, which was:

That would be the equivalent of saying that since I'm a better player than most people I should win every 1v1 battle. It's not going to happen like that because there are too many variables, and eventually I will make a mistake and lose one. Does that make me a worse player than the one that beat me? Hell no.

But I already addressed this. If you're clearly better than your opponent, you should be winning MOST of your battles. However, if he beats you, all it means is that he outplayed you in that moment. He was the better player at that moment, but that's it.

You can't judge a team's worth with one mistake, and you can't honestly say that one team is better than another because of the results of one encounter where an individual/s was/were at fault.

If you're talking about gaining control of the top of Thrashball, then it's obviously more than one mistake that's being made if you're losing control. If one person screws up, it's obviously going to domino and everyone else is going to die because of it, assuming your adaptation and clutch skills weren't sufficient to cover the role for the player who made the first mistake.

In that essence, it's a team failure, which means that your team got outplayed at that moment. Now, what can you say about that? You can't say that the other team is better, but you can say that in that moment in time, their strategy won the battle, and that you got outplayed.

I'll summarize my point: Just as a better player can make a mistake and lose in an encounter, a better team can make a mistake lose in an encounter. The better team will ultimately win in more encounters, as long as the playing conditions are fair and equal.

But obviously that's not the case, right? The team with the advantage is the team at the top, which means that it's "not fair and equal" for the entire match.

Well like I've been saying before:
1. Bring your A game to the top of the stands in the first 45 seconds of the match. If your team is so good, you should have a larger chance of gaining control than the other team.

2. If for some reason you fail to control the top, regain it. Gears isn't the first game in which players are put at a certain advantage/disadvantage over others. It's an integral part to gaming and competition to earn advantages for your team and abuse them so you can prosper in the end. These advantages can range from matchups in fighting games, to stage advantages in Smash, to score advantages in Death matches which force the other team to approach, host advantages in online games, to fighting a guy 2v1 in a certain area of the map, etc.

A stage assisting with an advantage is nothing uncommon to gaming or competition. Earning advantages shouldn't be discouraged at the least.

However, your point is more about how your able to maintain that advantage rather than gaining the advantage in the first place right?

Well again, I already explained it. The tools in the map are sufficient enough to regain control of the top. You can theory all you want, but the top of the stands aren't so overpowered that regaining it is impossible. It can be difficult, yes, but who cares if it's difficult? Competitive players don't sidestep problems, they fight them. If it's possible but just difficult, then formulate a plan. The top of the stands is advantageous, but it can be countered, and a lot easier than how you put it. Make the plan, earn your advantage.

If you end up losing, all that means is that your team got outplayed in that moment, not that the other team is overall better.

Once a match reaches sudden death, I don't consider it to be a team battle anymore. The winner of the match is the player who kills the other player; teamwork has nothign to do with sudden death.

But it is a team battle, since it's one representative from each time battling it out, and your team mates are all there to aid you with call outs. It has everything to do with team vs. team, and everything to do with team work.

I agree with this, except I would add that the equal chances should remain throughout the duration of the match.

I think differently, and I already explained why.

Winning one encounter barely counts as earning a huge advantage that stifles the competition's ability to eve compete. This standard might be fine for the power an individual weapon, but the power to control an entire map shouldn't be left to one encounter.

Domino effect, my friend.

We've already established that even a good team can make a mistake, and disregarding degrees of team skill, it is entirely possible that a better team can lose a spot because of a mistake.

Yes that's true.

I disagree, the better team WILL always be the same team BECAUSE of the players on that team's abilities to handle and execute spur-of-the-moment encounters better than the other team on a general basis. Meaning, the better team will win the majority of encounters, but never will that team win them all because mistakes can and will be made eventually.

Yes, you're proving my point. Better teams will have a larger probability of winning, but they won't win all the time since the consequences for mistakes in Gears are so heavy that wins will fluctuate between teams. In other words, when you lose, all it means is that you got outplayed at that moment, not that your team suddenly becomes overall worse than the other team.

I have no problem with any of this except the red. Equal playing ground should exist at ALL times. Meaning if a team gets an advantage, the other team should have equal ability fo fight that advantage, which doesn't exist on Thrashball.

Yes, one team gets an advantage, but it isn't instant win. I see no problems.

Discussing theory is a lot different from actual play. It's find to think about what a digger COULD be used for, but if it's not likely to happen in reality, it's not really worth discussing.

That's why I'm intentionally vague with my theories. You have the tools, which means you can make the plans. As for what plans I'm talking about, it's different. All I know is that weapons have multiple uses, teams have different formations, and players aren't 100% perfect. It's up to the team to use this knowledge, adapt to their current situation, and formulate a plan.

And like I said, you can theory all you want, but taking over the top simply isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be, and for the reasons that you just stated.

The reason why I say "could" is because I can't speak for the actions of every team out there. If I were speaking about one of my groups of friend I'd say "always" because we never forget to watch the sides and see where people are coming from. The point is, if you can end up being able to take the spot, it's likely because the team upstairs was negligent, not because you were good enough to overcome the odds. Against any good team, you're not getting that spot back.

Underlined: Seemingly meaningless contradiction. I'm Phoenix Wright now.
Bolded: The other team had the top, but they had a poor formation to maintain it, and the other team formulated a plan and abused it. It's the other team's mistake for not maintaining high ground. Happens all the time.

inb4theydontdeservetheirnewlyacquiredadvantage

There's a huge difference between constant failure and occasional failure. It's the teams fault if they pick a player who is known for repeatedly failing to do things properly, but it's not the team's fault if they pick a person who has a reputation for being a good player capable of making good decisions and executing them properly, but he messes up one time and dies. A team can't account for every single action that anothe player can make, but it can account for actions that the player is expected to make.

I don't agree with this at all. Since it wasn't aimed at me, I'll address it if my friend's response doesn't suck as much as how he sucks in Gears.




Anything else I didn't respond to is because I feel like I already addressed it.

 

[MuraRengan]

But I already addressed this. If you're clearly better than your opponent, you should be winning MOST of your battles. However, if he beats you, all it means is that he outplayed you in that moment. He was the better player at that moment, but that's it.

But if that one loss puts my opponent in a position of severe advantage (to the point of where I have very few options of defeating him, and those options themselves are still difficult), him killing me in subsequent encounters doesn't really show that he is a better overall player than I am, but that he won a single fair fight, then won the rest of the fight because of the disjointed power he got after the first fight.

If you're talking about gaining control of the top of Thrashball, then it's obviously more than one mistake that's being made if you're losing control. If one person screws up, it's obviously going to domino and everyone else is going to die because of it, assuming your adaptation and clutch skills weren't sufficient to cover the role for the player who made the first mistake.

In that essence, it's a team failure, which means that your team got outplayed at that moment. Now, what can you say about that? You can't say that the other team is better, but you can say that in that moment in time, their strategy won the battle, and that you got outplayed.

I disagree. It's not reasonable to expect a player to be able handle more than one enemy on his own (maybe in gears 2, but not this one), nor is it reasonable to call a failure to handle more than one enemy a "mistake." Once one person dies, then that team is now looking at overwhelming odds, where at least one player is going to have to put forth double effort just to make the situation stable again. It's not necessarily a mistake if one loses in such a situation, because the odds are so stacked against an outnumbered team that at many times one can make all the right decisions and still die because there was no action they could take to avoid it.

Well like I've been saying before:
1. Bring your A game to the top of the stands in the first 45 seconds of the match. If your team is so good, you should have a larger chance of gaining control than the other team.

2. If for some reason you fail to control the top, regain it. Gears isn't the first game in which players are put at a certain advantage/disadvantage over others. It's an integral part to gaming and competition to earn advantages for your team and abuse them so you can prosper in the end. These advantages can range from matchups in fighting games, to stage advantages in Smash, to score advantages in Death matches which force the other team to approach, host advantages in online games, to fighting a guy 2v1 in a certain area of the map, etc.

You act as if regaining the top is a simple task. You've got to be a lot more specific before I'll admit that it can be reasonably done. I'd be willing to bet that the team in the stands has enough attack options to make approaching the stands impossible, just from what I've witnessed and the teams I've been on who have captured the stands. If you can give me a reasonable outline for a plan that could feasibly work beyond all extremities, I'll concede the point to you. But as of now, I'll answer your vague "Yes they can" with "No they can't."

However, your point is more about how your able to maintain that advantage rather than gaining the advantage in the first place right?

My point hasn't really changed. When talkign about advantage, it was understood that the other team is at a disadvantage, and that disadvantage being that they were unable to approach the team with the advantage.

Well again, I already explained it. The tools in the map are sufficient enough to regain control of the top. You can theory all you want, but the top of the stands aren't so overpowered that regaining it is impossible. It can be difficult, yes, but who cares if it's difficult? Competitive players don't sidestep problems, they fight them. If it's possible but just difficult, then formulate a plan. The top of the stands is advantageous, but it can be countered, and a lot easier than how you put it. Make the plan, earn your advantage.I

f you end up losing, all that means is that your team got outplayed in that moment, not that the other team is overall better.[/COLOR]

I disagree. I do not think the weapons available are sufficient to take the spot back. The only way I can see a team taking the spot back from another team is if that team is substantially better than the other team, but if the skill levels of the teams are anywhere close to each other, the advantage of being in the stands will be too great for the other team to overcome because the map does not provide adequate tools for the other players to combat the other team.

But it is a team battle, since it's one representative from each time battling it out, and your team mates are all there to aid you with call outs. It has everything to do with team vs. team, and everything to do with team work.

Ok, that's a valid point. But your teammates don't affect how well you actually fight the other person. In the end, if I miss an active reload or something and die because of it, that's my fault, not the team's.

Domino effect, my friend.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Yes, you're proving my point. Better teams will have a larger probability of winning, but they won't win all the time since the consequences for mistakes in Gears are so heavy that wins will fluctuate between teams. In other words, when you lose, all it means is that you got outplayed at that moment, not that your team suddenly becomes overall worse than the other team.

But as a general rule, Gears should make the playing ground as fair as possible, so the victories and losses of these encounters more accurately reflect the team's overall ability, which Thrashball doesn't because of the stands.

Yes, one team gets an advantage, but it isn't instant win. I see no problems.

For any good team it's most likely to be an instant win. Based on my own experiences, I would say that it is an instant win, but I must give at least some consideration to the contrary.

That's why I'm intentionally vague with my theories. You have the tools, which means you can make the plans. As for what plans I'm talking about, it's different. All I know is that weapons have multiple uses, teams have different formations, and players aren't 100% perfect. It's up to the team to use this knowledge, adapt to their current situation, and formulate a plan.

And like I said, you can theory all you want, but taking over the top simply isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be, and for the reasons that you just stated.

Sorry, but vague theories aren't going to change my mind. I'm sincerely trying to understand your point of view, but if you can't elaborate on what kind of plan to use, I've got no reason to believe that you know what you're talking about.

Also, you're guilty of theorizing as well, and vague theorizing at that.

As of yet, you've given me no reason to think that it's feasible to take the top from a team once they have it.

Underlined: Seemingly meaningless contradiction. I'm Phoenix Wright now.
Bolded: The other team had the top, but they had a poor formation to maintain it, and the other team formulated a plan and abused it. It's the other team's mistake for not maintaining high ground. Happens all the time.

The underlined wasn't a contradiction. I was talking about good teams only, not all teams.

The bold shows an instance when the team who captured the stand was flat-out bad. A better team wouldn't make such careless mistakes. And again, unless you elaborate on what kinds of plans a team can make, I'm not going to buy the whole "Devise a plan and retake the stands" argument.

I think this argument is coming down to a difference in opinion on how feasible it is to capture the stands from another person. If you agree, then there's no real reason to respond anymore, I respect your differing opinion.

 

[WindMajor]

I think this argument is coming down to a difference in opinion on how feasible it is to capture the stands from another person. If you agree, then there's no real reason to respond anymore, I respect your differing opinion.

Yeah I was feeling this as I was writing my last one, but I just kinda kept on. I think that the game is balanced enough as it is, and you think otherwise. We each have our reasons, and I definitely see where you're coming from, but I'll respectfully agree to disagree since I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything any time soon.

Hopefully we can both agree that the beta is awesome, right?

 

[The Real Gamer]

ITT: People debating over Gears of War as if this were the Debate Hall.

Who cares about facts... I'm still better than most of you at GoW2 anyways.

/debate

 

[WindMajor]

Who cares about GoW2 anyways?

Gears 3 is all the rage nowadays.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Who cares about GoW2 anyways?

The people that don't have beta codes. >.>

Unless if there is someone out there that would like to change that... It would be MUCH appreciated.

 

[MuraRengan]

Who cares about GoW2 anyways?

Gears 3 is all the rage nowadays.

I'm still sorta meh about it, but whenever I try to go back and play gears 2, I realize how much it matters that weapons actually work in Gears 3. So yeah it's pretty good.

On another note, me and my friends just played a perfect ranked match on thrashball. No deaths at all. LOL

 

[WindMajor]

I'm still sorta meh about it, but whenever I try to go back and play gears 2, I realize how much it matters that weapons actually work in Gears 3. So yeah it's pretty good.

On another note, me and my friends just played a perfect ranked match on thrashball. No deaths at all. LOL

Ha that's awesome.

Best thing I did in the beta was win a clutch 3v1 with 3 consecutive shotgun bullets.

Mid sneeze.

 

[ElDominio]

The people that don't have beta codes. >.>

Unless if there is someone out there that would like to change that... It would be MUCH appreciated.

TWiNK is a whiny ***** and I pm'ed it to you.

It has been changed.


Anywho, MuraRewtfyournameis.
It was an obvious sarcastic statement. I just troll TWiNK everywhere we coexist.
He doesn't fail that much, but when he does, it affects everyone.
After that, you failed to address everything else I said.
Congrats.

 

[WindMajor]

Man I was already thrown under the bus, now you're kicking me while I'm down.

Tell me, why do you <3 me so much.

Why

 

[ElDominio]

Man I was already thrown under the bus, now you're kicking me while I'm down.

Tell me, why do you <3 me so much.

Why

You're asking for a Bawwwww

 

[WindMajor]

I can't believe that your response is gonna include bawwww.

 

[ElDominio]

I can't believe that your response is gonna include bawwww.

Five alter egos u crazeh boi