matchmaking today seems uber broken or something. I'm flying solo, it keeps finding players, then losing them, it fills the slots up but then loses one, or two, or all! FFS MAN!! Been sat here for ages and its just going from full to empty over and over.
Had about 2 games today. hells going on? I'm writing this as I'm waiting for a damn game.
Evonus said:
I don't see how it guarantees that if you're communicating properly. Three guys rushing in, with two outside the red zone using their Lancers to soften up the opposition enough for the teammates to take care of the rest. It's not going to work every time, but its a good strategy that works great against against a team that doesn't ever change up their tactics. If they're good enough to utterly destroy your three on-rushers, then your team didn't deserve to win. Its an easier strategy in Warzone, but a downed enemy is still a downed enemy. The split-second it takes to pick somebody up is the time that can be used to take out a distracted enemy.
I'm not sure what Gears 1 you played, but after the first few months, it was never a stop-and-pop game for me. It was all about rushing in with a shotgun and wall-bouncing around. This game isn't about stop-and-pop either, as much as Epic might try to make it that. The simple fact is that you still perform better more of the time using other methods. Stop-and-pop works against stupid enemies, but when people are rushing around, rather than hanging back, cover isn't so effective. You just can't stop moving when you're playing against other humans.
In gears 1, cover was a big part of the game unless you played with a boring bunch of people who just rush in like rambo. Yes some players did do that, I personally didnt stick around those games.
Rooftops, you spent most of the match in cover
That troika level - sniper in the pit, teams camped on both sides, if you dive in to get it you get in cover or you die. Torque bow side, you're on cover on either side seeing who is wiling to take the risk. Grenades primed for whoever gets impatient, smokes might enable you to sneak in and grab it and get out alive. Thats two stand offs, equally balanced in terms of opportunity and risk, if one team focuses on one way, they stand more chance of getting the weapon, but will almost certainly get flanked - can the flanker get there before his team is wiped out though?
Mansion, again, either side of each power weapon, cover is often used. Play this level again and its never used, people rush in with grenades. Good players will get you with a grenade even if you try to be clever and hang back cos hey you can throw pretty far, the nades have huge radius and the space aint that big.
You can say the same for all the old maps, mention any of the original maps and the first thing that comes to my mind is a memorable stand off, cover came first and foremost, largely because it was a necessary mechanic. active reload snipers were always a deterrent to walking around in the open, shotguns being so powerful meant a) it was safer to fire from cover and b) they were still effective in cover or as one shot ambush weapons. If you're in cover now, you don't have a weapon powerful enough to make sure you down or kill someone before they reach you and chainsaw you. and the fact you're in cover is not a deterrent for someone who decides to rush you cos he has smokes and a chainsaw.
I'm happy to agree to disagree because I'm not talking about winning or losing or countering the rush tactics necessarily, I'm talking about the mechanics of the game being fundamentally unbalanced and encouraging/discouraging parts of the game I thought essential.
Just played a game of annex on day one, 3 of my 3 bar team mates desert us leaving it 2 on 5 for the whole game. Fuckers. We put up a good fight but didnt stand a chance.
At least I'm having fun with the campaign.
