Tuesday Night Shoot-em-ups: Gears of War (1/30)

[webdanzer]

Couldn't disagree more. Revival is one of the coolest aspects of the game, and Warzone totally eliminates it from the game.

Execution requires more tactical nuance IMO, because you need to stick together to have someone cover your back to finish a kill. It also encourages you to have a buddy around to revive you. Warzone allows a solo player to snoop around and take guys out at a distance with little exposure.

And I disagree with you! I think warzone requires more tactics. The medium range firefight is pointless in execution. It's just a holding pattern until the one-kill weapons come into play or a melee-rush is made. Warzone actually requires you stick *closer* to your teammates than execution, because revivals need to be made quicker! If you go wide flank in a execution mode and get gunned down, you have more time for your buddies to come save to than you do in warzone. Warzone also demands more careful use of cover, in that if you are gunned down you have a better chance of surviving if you went down behing cover. In execution mode, you can run around freely in the open as long as you are among team-mates. They'll just pick you back up. You do that in warzone, you can die.

[Zeppo]

Sorry I had to bail. My dog has been pretty sick, and it looked like we might have needed an emergency vet trip last night.

I hope he's OK. That didn't sound pleasant, but it was probably worse for the dog if you can believe that. I hope he gets better soon.

As to execution vs. regular, I prefer execution for the reasons Rob listed. I enjoy the ability to use a downed opponent as bait, as well as the difficulty I have in resisting the temptation to run out and finish him off even though I know I will just get destroyed by his nearby buddies. In GoW, I much prefer close combat to end the battle to the way warzone battles often end, at a distance. There isn't a lot of circle strafing or R6-style chicken dancing, and while the chains of chainsaw deaths can get pretty silly at times (they can be funny as hell) they are mixed in with rounds that have better, more tactical finishes. With no spawns, the healing is a very nice element. It's much harder for a single guy to beat two or three in execution than in warzone, and I think that makes the whole round better and puts a greater premium on teamwork. Others might disagree.

I wonder if we should ever try assassination again? We are a lot better and know the maps better than when we first tried it, so maybe it would be more interesting now. However, I would prefer it to be execution style, but it's warzone style. Still, now that we know where the weapons are, and what weapons are good for what, asassinaiton might add some elements we aren't really aware of now.

[ScoopBrady]

I'm just embarrassed that I thought we were playing Warzone and was getting pissed when I would empty a clip into one of my downed adversaries only to see him get back up.

As for my preference, I do like execution better because of the whole risk/reward thing going on when a teammate is downed or when you down an opponent. Typically it should add more strategy and tactics to the game with communication. "Hey, I need cover while I go revive Rob (again )" or "Hey, I'll cover you, go finish him off."

[RandyM]

Just did a bit of google searching to clarify my understanding of the rules given Rob's response.

Wikipedia's entry says:
"Warzone mostly follows the standard Team Deathmatch archetype, with each team trying to eliminate the other. When players are downed they can only get back up when an ally revives them"

So revival does work fine in warzone, so I'm not sure what Rob's issue with it is.

I think you can still use a downed teammate as 'bait' in warzone, but the pressure is on, because the clock is ticking. The clock just changes sides (e.g. in Execution, it works FOR the downed player....in Warzone, it works AGAINST him).

I think webdanzer's 'holding pattern' accurately describes what I think of Execution. After several rounds, I found myself wondering why exactly I was really bothering with cover against anything but a sniper rifle. After all, I had nothing to fear from it if a teammate was closer than the enemy. No reason to keep my head down really beyond just not wanting to get downed. So I found myself discouraged from using combined fire tactics or flanking maneuvers. Someone isn't going to stay pinned by enemy fire for very long if they aren't particularly afraid of that fire. Basically, it was 'screw the lancer, get out the shotgun and rush' tactics. That's fine in matches with a bunch of solo shooters who don't work as a team very well, but I'm not as fond of it in a tactical shooter.

Randy

[webdanzer]

As for my preference, I do like execution better because of the whole risk/reward thing going on when a teammate is downed or when you down an opponent. Typically it should add more strategy and tactics to the game with communication. "Hey, I need cover while I go revive Rob (again )" or "Hey, I'll cover you, go finish him off."

See, but there I think Warzone is better too:

"Quick, guys, suppress those guys over there so I can run out and save Scoop before he dies!"

Compared to:

"Scoop is down. But don't worry, they can't kill him from there. Let's wait here and try to kill them as they go to finish him off. If they don't come, Scoop just gets back up anyway."

Different strokes, I suppose, but I like the urgency in the first case better.

Thanks for the well-wishes on the dog. We have our third vet trip today, and it seems to something GI related. She's been in pain for a couple of weeks, and it looks like the vet misdiagnosed it as a back problem, as the previous 'treatments' did nothing but seemingly make things worse.

[RandyM]

Hey, I need cover while I go revive Rob (again )" or "Hey, I'll cover you, go finish him off."

How would that cover help if shooting at a distance was no real threat? "Cover me" is a meaningless phrase in Execution. (Unless by "cover me" you mean, follow two steps behind me and nail the guy who nails me -- at which point it's basically a numbers game that all can play!)

Btw, don't take any of this to think I had less than a splendid time. Execution or not, I had a blast. I'm just always devising ways that I think things could be even better...and obviously not everyone agrees with my definition of 'better', and that's cool. Still had a blast playing with you guys, win, lose or draw.

Randy

[Naples39]

I for one agree with everything web said, and prefer warzone to execution. I like actually being able to kill a guy at medium range if he's out in the open, and don't like the constant wild melee endings.

It's pretty much just a matter of preference though, and it's not a big deal. I'd be up for mixing it up night to night.

[Zeppo]

What I always see happening in warzone is that once someone is down, he is as good as dead because the person who downed him, however far away he is, just needs to shoot a few more rounds into him to finish him off. So, while technically reviving is still functional, it is never useful because even if you try to get to your downed teammate, but the time you get there, he is already dead. But hey, different strokes and all that. I'm pretty sure we had enough last night to get two rooms going, for those that prefer warzone.

[RandyM]

"Quick, guys, suppress those guys over there so I can run out and save Scoop before he dies!"

Yup, you nailed it. The key words "suppress" and "cover" mean much less in Execution than they do in Warzone. I love the idea of yelling "cover me" and diving into rescue a fallen teammate while my guys lay down suppressing fire to keep the enemies at bay. But if I were in execution and someone tried that against me, I'd just yank out the shot gun, somersault in and go for the downed guy AND his rescuer. Pitiful non-lethal long range lancer fire wouldn't do much to dissuade me from going for it.

Randy

[Brando70]

Sounds like a case for two rooms!

I also prefer Execution. I think it embodies what makes GOW great and visceral. The revive aspect IMO does not skew it that much -- it's rare to get more than a couple revives per round. When you face an uneven number of people, you have to be very clever with cover and weapon selection, or just try to hold out to get the draw, which is very fun in this game.

The other problem with warzone is, given the relatively small area of the maps and the four-on-four limit, the rounds tend to end really quickly.

Does anyone know if a headshot from the pistol will execute someone?

[webdanzer]

It's pretty much just a matter of preference though, and it's not a big deal. I'd be up for mixing it up night to night.

Yeah, agreed. And in fact, I think the last couple of times before last night we had been playing warzone, so it seemed like it was execution's turn anyway.

[ScoopBrady]

Is there a way to make it take longer for someone to recover when being downed in Execution? What I don't like about it in Warzone is the fact that revives rarely occur. In most cases a downed person will get killed with a quick shot from across the map in a split second. That gives no opportunity to revive them. At least in execution a downed person is sort of a key point on the map that both teams need to control. That downed person is being fought over because alive they are important to their teammates and dead they are important to the opposition. Extending the time it takes to revive themselves would add a ton of strategy.

[RandyM]

What I always see happening in warzone is that once someone is down, he is as good as dead because the person who downed him, however far away he is, just needs to shoot a few more rounds into him to finish him off. So, while technically reviving is still functional, it is never useful because even if you try to get to your downed teammate, but the time you get there, he is already dead.

That's a very valid point, Zep. The issue is, CAN he put more rounds into the guy. If the downed guy's teammates are busy sending a hail of lead YOUR way, you may not have the luxury of continuing to put bullets into the downed guy. If he's alone, he pretty much deserves to die for leaving his wingmen . But if you stay exposed while you try to get that extra few rounds in him to kill him, it may cause YOU to get killed by the counterfire from his teammates. So you still have to decide, do you risk it? It's the same decision you might make in Execution, but you get to make it at longer ranges.

Randy

[RandyM]

Found this via google:

"Warzone: In warzone, a single shot when you are down will eliminate you for the remainder of the round. If you are down, tapping "A" will SLOW down the time frame in which you "bleed out", and die if you teammates do not revive you. This timeframe is set by the host, and can be from 5 to 60 seconds."

So we could set it tweak it. Maybe give it 30 seconds or something.

Randy

[RandyM]

Looks like we can tweak it for Execution too:

"Execution: Same strategy applies as to warzone, except one HUGE difference: the opponent that downs you needs to be a couple feet away from you to kill you. ANY KILL FROM THIS RANGE IS AN EXECUTION, REGARDLESS of the weapon involved. If you are down, tapping "A" will SPEED up the time in which you will revive on your own. Take great care when approaching a downed opponent; many hosts set the "bleed out" time to 5 seconds, so a surprise kill might be in store for the cocky."

[Zeppo]

What I always see happening in warzone is that once someone is down, he is as good as dead because the person who downed him, however far away he is, just needs to shoot a few more rounds into him to finish him off. So, while technically reviving is still functional, it is never useful because even if you try to get to your downed teammate, but the time you get there, he is already dead.

That's a very valid point, Zep. The issue is, CAN he put more rounds into the guy. If the downed guy's teammates are busy sending a hail of lead YOUR way, you may not have the luxury of continuing to put bullets into the downed guy.

Not in my experience. In the warzone games I've played, the finishing off comes part and parcel with the downing. That is, it takes only a few extra rounds to finish a guy off, so what happens is you just keep shooting after he is downed, and less than a second later he is finished. I find the execution mode to be one of the most unique things about GoW, something it has that other shooters don't, and it highlights a lot of the other elements that are special to the game, including the revive function, the chainsaw, the use of the L-button and the Y-button to find your teammates, and other things as well. You can still finish people off from a distance if you use the right weapon (sniper, boom stick, hammer, grenade), so you don't have to move in close, but for my money what makes this game different and more fun is the nature of the close-quarters combat insanity, complete with wild rolls and dives, chainsaw weirdness, sticky grenades and so one. In my experience, warzone has been more about longer distance encounters.

[RandyM]

Okay, I'm spamming the dang thread. Sorry.

I'd definitely be warming up to execution with a longer revive time. I'd say -- set both of 'em to max -- 60 seconds.. And see what happens in the game.

60 seconds would take them out of the fight and allow them to become the focal point of contested territory. It might also allow the teams to form a bit more strategy than just rushing in with shotguns. Even the lancer can down someone at range....and if they STAYED down for more than a few seconds, it might force teams to come up with better strategies to 'rescue' the downed party member(s), as well as strategies to 'finish' downed opponents without getting downed themselves.

Randy

[RobVarak]

Does anyone know if a headshot from the pistol will execute someone?

I don't think the default will do it, but the magnum can one-shot kill.

[webdanzer]

The quick finishes happen only if the guy goes down in the open, though. If you go down behind cover, you are safer. So thus, Warzone encourages more use of cover, while execution allows for some more wild and wooly play.

And that feeds into what Zep just said. Yeah, if you want more of the crazy wild melees and 'nade tags and such, you get more (nearly all games) in Execution. In Warzone, some games are close, and some games are at range. I like the variety better, but again, it's just a preference thing

[webdanzer]

Okay, I'm spamming the dang thread. Sorry.

I'd definitely be warming up to execution with a longer revive time. I'd say -- set both of 'em to max -- 60 seconds.. And see what happens in the game.

60 seconds would take them out of the fight and allow them to become the focal point of contested territory. It might also allow the teams to form a bit more strategy than just rushing in with shotguns. Even the lancer can down someone at range....and if they STAYED down for more than a few seconds, it might force teams to come up with better strategies to 'rescue' the downed party member(s), as well as strategies to 'finish' downed opponents without getting downed themselves.

Randy

In my experience in the DSP games, though, downed opponents rarely bleed out in execution as is. They are usually either revived or finished off. I don't think extending the timer would change much.

[RandyM]

It might or it might not.

Your statement that downed players are quickly revived or finished is true. The questions I would then ask is "why is that so" and "what happens as a result of that".

I would answer - the reason is that people bum rush the downed person's position. If they are the enemies of the downed player, they are rushing to kill before he gets up again. If they are allies, they are rushing to revive him before said enemies finish him.

Second answer is that the result is you have 1 or 2 guys bum rushing in from both sides, yanking out shot guns as they go in order to get set for the close range revival + point blank shootout that is sure to follow.

Now, if everyone KNEW the clock was longer, would the teams necessarily madly rush in without assessing? And if they didn't, would the defenders madly rush in to revive? If everyone reacts to the extended clock by still madly rushing in, then the clock doesn't matter and the outcome is the same.

But if a team holds back from rushing and instead starts downing the rescuers/finishers from range (knowing the downed guy can't just get up anytime soon), then it won't be long before the rescuers/finishers hold up and think it through a bit. Until someone makes someone else pay for rushing to the downed player with shotguns, it will continue to happen. My question is simply: Can you make player(s) rushing in with shotguns towards the downed player PAY for that haste without rushing in yourself? With a long timer, you can. Without it, you can't (because the guy will get up and end the issue).

Randy

[ScoopBrady]

My experience with Warzone is that, more often than not, even if you're behind cover enough of your hulking body will be visible and you'll get killed in one shot from a distance. I just don't think downs are important in Warzone when only 10-15% of downs ever play out strategically and 10-15% of downs don't play out strategically in Execution.

[webdanzer]

I just don't think downs are important in Warzone when only 10-15% of downs ever play out strategically and 10-15% of downs don't play out strategically in Execution.

I think you are way off in your estimation of strategic downs in Execution. A good chunk of downs are finished off quickly or revived quickly, with little or no worry about the opposing side. I'd put that number more at 50% But yes, I think overall there are more strategic downs in execution over warzone.

But again, that points to difference in preference. I like to employ more tactics in the avoidance of going down, rather than the recovery of such.

[webdanzer]

I would answer - the reason is that people bum rush the downed person's position. If they are the enemies of the downed player, they are rushing to kill before he gets up again. If they are allies, they are rushing to revive him before said enemies finish him.

While this happens sometimes, mostly, I disagree. DSP people are pretty careful to revive and/or finish when they have moved the odds into their favor, rather than a blind bum-rush.

It wouldn't bother me at all if we changed the timer, but I really don't see it affecting our play much.

[Spooky]

I would answer - the reason is that people bum rush the downed person's position. If they are the enemies of the downed player, they are rushing to kill before he gets up again. If they are allies, they are rushing to revive him before said enemies finish him.

While this happens sometimes, mostly, I disagree. DSP people are pretty careful to revive and/or finish when they have moved the odds into their favor, rather than a blind bum-rush.

It wouldn't bother me at all if we changed the timer, but I really don't see it affecting our play much.

See, I agree with trying the increased timer. I think that there could potentially be less of a rush to get to a downed enemy OR teammate if we all knew we had more time to get to them. This could lead to a bit more slow paced strategy rather then the "bum rush" one that can occur.

Maybe not though...these rounds get so crazy and adrenaline rushed that anything goes regardless of the settings!