Say what you will about Gears 3, but it does have some basic design problems

I am not talking about Sawed Off Shotguns, or corner camping, or any of the other general balance whining. I am talking about basic programming fail. I was just in a game where there were 7 humans and 3 AI (lol, why not just postpone game until we have a full group like in Black Ops, have us sit in a lobby for 30-60 seconds to see if we can get some people?), and the game decided that appropriate balance would mean all 3 AI on one team. That's not balance, Epic.

There really shouldn't even BE computer controller players in versus. If someone leaves midgame, just have it be a 4v5. If two ppl from the same team leave, do an intermission team balance between rounds of the best of 3 (I know, team balancing on the fly, revolutionary concept for these console developers). If more than 3 or more people leave from one team, end the game due to insufficient numbers. It's that easy...

Why have AI period? It's not like this was a small time release game that no one has heard of. There are plenty of people to fill up matches.

play ranked matches, players are less likely to leave :P

You advocate pulling players out of a game in the middle of a match while the teams are "rebalanced?" That would be infuriating given that people quit Gears of War games about every ten seconds. And don't even get me started on how maddening it would be to be forced off of a winning team in the middle of a match in the name of "balance." To say that the game should just continue as a 4 on 5 is just silly--losing even one player for the rest of a round without even an AI filler who will at least distract enemies would put you at a ridiculous disdvantage. Besides, how can you possibly argue that an empty spot is better than a bot that at least sometimes kills something or revives you while you're down? That just doesn't make sense.

If you'll remember, Gears of War 2 released without a bot auto-fill and it was essentially unplayable since players would leave and nothing would take their place. Players cried about it so much that Epic patched in the bots later in the game's life. Now you're arguing to get rid of them? Unlikely. The teams may not always be perfectly balanced all the time (really, though, are they ever in any game?), but I'll take an aiming, shooting bot over a blank space or irritating mid-game team swaps and "balancing" any day.

You advocate pulling players out of a game in the middle of a match while the teams are "rebalanced?" That would be infuriating given that people quit Gears of War games about every ten seconds. And don't even get me started on how maddening it would be to be forced off of a winning team in the middle of a match in the name of "balance." To say that the game should just continue as a 4 on 5 is just silly--losing even one player for the rest of a round without even an AI filler who will at least distract enemies would put you at a ridiculous disdvantage. Besides, how can you possibly argue that an empty spot is better than a bot that at least sometimes kills something or revives you while you're down? That just doesn't make sense.

If you'll remember, Gears of War 2 released without a bot auto-fill and it was essentially unplayable since players would leave and nothing would take their place. Players cried about it so much that Epic patched in the bots later in the game's life. Now you're arguing to get rid of them? Unlikely. The teams may not always be perfectly balanced all the time (really, though, are they ever in any game?), but I'll take an aiming, shooting bot over a blank space or irritating mid-game team swaps and "balancing" any day.

sixgears2

[QUOTE="sixgears2"]

You advocate pulling players out of a game in the middle of a match while the teams are "rebalanced?" That would be infuriating given that people quit Gears of War games about every ten seconds. And don't even get me started on how maddening it would be to be forced off of a winning team in the middle of a match in the name of "balance." To say that the game should just continue as a 4 on 5 is just silly--losing even one player for the rest of a round without even an AI filler who will at least distract enemies would put you at a ridiculous disdvantage. Besides, how can you possibly argue that an empty spot is better than a bot that at least sometimes kills something or revives you while you're down? That just doesn't make sense.

If you'll remember, Gears of War 2 released without a bot auto-fill and it was essentially unplayable since players would leave and nothing would take their place. Players cried about it so much that Epic patched in the bots later in the game's life. Now you're arguing to get rid of them? Unlikely. The teams may not always be perfectly balanced all the time (really, though, are they ever in any game?), but I'll take an aiming, shooting bot over a blank space or irritating mid-game team swaps and "balancing" any day.

AWolfoftheCalla

the bots are actually more worthless than being a man down. they give the other team free kills.AWolfoftheCalla

that can only happen in quick matches if you play ranked then the game will not start until the game is filled with human players so im not seeing the problem here and it clearly states that in the game too. Also you have to take into account that many if not most people are playing in groups that wont be separated during matchmaking so its unavoidable that there will be stacked teams and uneven amount of bots.

So no gears 3 does not have basic design problems. It actually dosent get much better really and most games do far worse.

also bots are needed anyone that played gears 2 before they added bots in know how much of a handicap being down a person or two can be. More often than not it was the deciding factor of a match. Bots may not make sound logical decisions but they sure as hell can auto aim the hell out of everything in sight which is ten times better than being down a person when it comes to gears.

It's definitely not perfect, but it's a fantastic game.

You advocate pulling players out of a game in the middle of a match while the teams are "rebalanced?" That would be infuriating given that people quit Gears of War games about every ten seconds. And don't even get me started on how maddening it would be to be forced off of a winning team in the middle of a match in the name of "balance." To say that the game should just continue as a 4 on 5 is just silly--losing even one player for the rest of a round without even an AI filler who will at least distract enemies would put you at a ridiculous disdvantage. Besides, how can you possibly argue that an empty spot is better than a bot that at least sometimes kills something or revives you while you're down? That just doesn't make sense.

If you'll remember, Gears of War 2 released without a bot auto-fill and it was essentially unplayable since players would leave and nothing would take their place. Players cried about it so much that Epic patched in the bots later in the game's life. Now you're arguing to get rid of them? Unlikely. The teams may not always be perfectly balanced all the time (really, though, are they ever in any game?), but I'll take an aiming, shooting bot over a blank space or irritating mid-game team swaps and "balancing" any day.

Agreed. Even worse is being stuck on a team of under lvl 30's vs a team with level mid 30's or even 50+. (Or vice-versa). How on earth can it be so difficult to balance the teams properly?Floppy_Jim

Is it implied that a player below level 30 is worse than a player above level 50?

Agreed. Even worse is being stuck on a team of under lvl 30's vs a team with level mid 30's or even 50+. (Or vice-versa). How on earth can it be so difficult to balance the teams properly?Floppy_Jim

This is not, at all, how they balance teams (in consecutive Quick Matches). Level has nothing to do with it. Plus, I am a level 29 and destroy level 50+'s all the time. Alternatively, I have been destroyed by level 10's.

Play ranked matches.

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]Agreed. Even worse is being stuck on a team of under lvl 30's vs a team with level mid 30's or even 50+. (Or vice-versa). How on earth can it be so difficult to balance the teams properly?Aaron89

This is not, at all, how they balance teams (in consecutive Quick Matches). Level has nothing to do with it. Plus, I am a level 29 and destroy level 50+'s all the time. Alternatively, I have been destroyed by level 10's.

i have no problem with AI taking place of empty slots until someone comes along...id rather play with AI teammates, than sit in a lobby waiting. I love Gears 3, havent enjoyed Gears online since #1...this is a huge improvement. But i gotta say, sawed off shotguns drive me nuts.

alright, let me pose this question to all those who said I should play ranked matches. Is the ranked community just filled with "super hardcore pros" and tryhards? Because the last thing I wanted is to be yelled at because I am less than perfect at the game

alright, let me pose this question to all those who said I should play ranked matches. Is the ranked community just filled with "super hardcore pros" and tryhards? Because the last thing I wanted is to be yelled at because I am less than perfect at the game

Essian

alright, let me pose this question to all those who said I should play ranked matches. Is the ranked community just filled with "super hardcore pros" and tryhards? Because the last thing I wanted is to be yelled at because I am less than perfect at the game

Essian

Higher level = more time spent playing Gears 3 = more experienced- knows their way around each map- most likely better player? If this logic makes no sense to you, forget what I said before. [QUOTE="Essian"]

alright, let me pose this question to all those who said I should play ranked matches. Is the ranked community just filled with "super hardcore pros" and tryhards? Because the last thing I wanted is to be yelled at because I am less than perfect at the game

Floppy_Jim

Ahh, I've seen those bots put up better numbers than some players.