There is nothing simple about it.
There is absolutely something simple about a lot of things the comp crowd seems to complain about on here. For instance, changing body types during matches, or being able to unlock everything with one character, or removing skills altogether. It seems like if there is ever an “obstacle” to overcome, or a chance that Player A might outgun player B, (regardless if they outgun just because they are better than you) then it must be dealt with.
Well worded. And I still don’t see why it’s specifically the comp players that reason like this.
Eh. So you would be perfectly fine if something was provided that allowed someone to out play you simply because they had spent more time playing? And your also saying that you would not care if you joined a random game in which you had no way of organizing specific attributes before hand that would determine the outcome of the game? I don’t think you understand that the “comp players” don’t just want those things tossed out instantly in general, but we insist that if they are going to be included, they have to be available to everyone. It is really not that hard to understand at all. It has nothing to do with any of what you mentioned, but only to do with balance and equality over everything else. What is wrong with that I ask? I’ll take your version of “simple” over something that is broken thanks… all that is needed is a good explanation of how any of the stuff that people are concerned about will work in such a way; and that needs to come from the devs and not the guesses of high post count forum users.
Eh. So you would be perfectly fine if something was provided that allowed someone to out play you simply because they had spent more time playing?
Seeing as though the abilities are not setup in a more time = more power fashion, and you can only use 3 at any time, this probably will not be a problem. Of course, we won’t know until it releases, but I don’t think Brink is gonna be CoD 2.0 in terms of unlockables and perks. I play games that follow the more time = more power philosophy all the time - they are called RPG’s.
And your also saying that you would not care if you joined a random game in which you had no way of organizing specific attributes before hand that would determine the outcome of the game?
What do you mean by “beforehand?” You can setup your guy how you want before you join matches, it isn’t like you join and it randomly generates a character for you to play.
I don’t think you understand that the “comp players” don’t just want those things tossed out instantly in general, but we insist that if they are going to be included, they have to be available to everyone.
Everything is available to everyone, just not all the time. You are perfectly capable of having all the abilities that Players A-Z have, just not at the same time or on the same characters. Your solution seems to be “if you have access to something I don’t, remove it.” I’m more about “You have something I don’t, but what I have is equally effective in a different way, or counters your ability.” None of this seems to matter in the comp community, where outgunning/killing your opponent is #1 on the list, essentially making the game a huge TDM game with objectives and classes thrown in. Any form of “advantage” (and I use that term lightly) is forbidden. I remember when I played comp, my team was focused on getting the objectives done as quick as possible - guess times have changed.
Abilities and upgrades, even bodytypes will not determine the outcome of the match.
It’s a team game. It’s not about ONE player’s setup but instead about the composition of the team.
So joining a server “randomly” creates a team for you. You are just 1/8 of your team.
[QUOTE=H0RSE;231869]
I remember when I played comp, my team was focused on getting the objectives done as quick as possible - guess times have changed.[/QUOTE]
…yeah, right… when exactly did that change? I didn’t notice. Is it not about the objectives anymore because we want old options like /kill in the game? Or being able to change class with all the class specific things (which are extended in BRINK due to different class specific perks that you can’t change during the match)?
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that in Stopwatch it’s more important to kill someone than to do the objective?
INF3RNO is 100% right when he says comp players just want everything to be balanced. That’s also the reason why they don’t want random spread, because it’s just imba when your aiming depends on luck.
edit: @tokamak Abilities and bodytypes will play a HUGE strategic role, otherwise I would be really disappointed about their implementation.
That’s why I didn’t use the word ‘determine’. Because I trust SD to make the perks not completely imbalanced 
Ragoo pretty much said a lot of what I would have so gonna skip that. I would like to make some cross game comparisons with other game types that use similar RPG elements. In your standard MMO RPG a well balanced team is going to do much better than one of say all the same type. In Brink classes are not locked so that takes care of a big issue, but consider something like body types and abilities. You get a fixed amount of these two things, and from a purely individual perspective you have an equal opportunity as everyone else although you obviously choose an individual style of play, no problem there. You also get to set a different ability layout for each class, so you are never limited to playing one class. The abilities work a lot like that of LoL where in you setup your mastery points/runes/summoner spells in a manner that fits your character type. You are however only allowed a certain number of points which you must choose to distribute the way you see fit (this only affects your individual play). So that all makes sense and has a good balance. Now if you look at it from a non-individual perspective and one of a team, everything changes. In the games that implement these systems, as they want to do in Brink, there is one HUGE difference. You get to organize all of these things with your team before the game begins. This way everyone is not thrown into a random mix where in the luck of the draw will determine advantage. The way I can see this working in Brink is one of many options, some more attractive than others, but all with the concept of balance in mind;
I trust that such things are being implemented with good intentions, but who is to know what possible problems have not been given solutions. I like the sound of all these new things, but like most everyone else who is just slightly concerned, is due to the fact that it is hard to imagine these things actually working well in a Team FPS without delivering something like “World of COD”. Again, in no way is there a demand to get rid of this stuff, but rather to get a solid explanation of why it won’t be a problem (more than “just cuz”). In QW for example a lot of people did not like the vehicles, but perhaps if they were balanced with the infantry game better (like in pro) you would find more acceptance and would gain a new bit of strategy and content (instead of just new game new graphics). It is hard to get “new” to work, and hopefully Brink will be the first to do it, I hope.
This is such a lame attitude, if you’re going to try new stuff there will always be the possibility of unforseen problems. If every developer thought like you there wouldn’t be W:ET.
On top of that, this system has already been tried and tested in MMORPG’s. When you join a battleground you have no idea what classes, races or talent trees your team mates will have. It forces people to think up clever and creative ways to play the cards that they’ve been dealth every single time. Without that random factor to adjust yourself to, battles would start to look like each other very fast because every team would stick with what they perceive as the most optimal configuration every single match. Boring.
And that’s why I don’t understand the objection from competitive players. Why wouldn’t you accept this challenge? Why take away that factor of improvisation?
Yeah but Inferno did.
[QUOTE=tokamak;231939] Without that random factor to adjust yourself to, battles would start to look like each other very fast because every team would stick with what they perceive as the most optimal configuration every single match. Boring.
[/QUOTE]
Imo DotA games are very good for comparison. Do all DotA teams look the same? Is it just the same thing over and over again, just because the players can decide which character/strategy they choose, depending on what the other players chose?
I don’t have very much knowledge about these games but I doubt that’s the case.
I’m glad you have different perk sets for every class though, things could be worse…
The system Brink is going to use sounds a lot like Guild Wars.
In Guild Wars, you can start a multiplayer character at maximum experience level (20). Even if you don’t, leveling to level20 doesn’t take long. You have limited number of ability slots, and can change your default ability set. But generally there are no abilities strictly better than other abilities, it’s about tradeoffs. It’s about customisation, not accumulation of loot and xp like in Diablo. You customize your character to fit better to your playstyle, or fit better with the rest of the team.
Why are competitive players against it ?
Fear of change.
Random factors were put in strategy games (and board games) to train army officers better. You never know about everything and chances are never symmetric. Surprises are unavoidable (“No plan survives the contact with the enemy”). There are differences in army size, quality, positioning, terrain etc. Officers were supposed to learn adaptation.
Starcraft players and other competitive players hate that. A map should look like a tennis field. You should always know what enemy is capable of. Unsurprisingly, Starcraft is a shallow game. Players will spend hours honing their fast clicking skills, but there’s a glass ceiling for strategy and tactics.
[QUOTE=tokamak;231939]This is such a lame attitude, if you’re going to try new stuff there will always be the possibility of unforseen problems. If every developer thought like you there wouldn’t be W:ET.
On top of that, this system has already been tried and tested in MMORPG’s. When you join a battleground you have no idea what classes, races or talent trees your team mates will have. It forces people to think up clever and creative ways to play the cards that they’ve been dealth every single time. Without that random factor to adjust yourself to, battles would start to look like each other very fast because every team would stick with what they perceive as the most optimal configuration every single match. Boring.
And that’s why I don’t understand the objection from competitive players. Why wouldn’t you accept this challenge? Why take away that factor of improvisation?
[/QUOTE]
In MMORPGs the higher levels always win, not a good example (even GW is not great). The whole MMORPG PVP system is not that relative. In LoL however (I like this system more than dota), you play a much more balanced game. You have 0 idea what your opponents are using, but you do get the chance to agree on a setup with your team. There is not necessarily a right or wrong way to set this up (You do need to be smart about it), but it helps to create a more even spread of abilities and characters. You could still do something completely unorthodox, but at least you had the opportunity to decide. Considering that different setups in Brink are limited to having different functions, you can only expect that the layout will be important to the team. Your completely dumb to think that its all about avoiding a challenge, when its all about keeping it challenging instead of easy for the select few. I don’t know if you have ever played a game like dota, but it seems like you would love losing. There is nothing degrading about making decisions as a team instead of having to deal with random pick. It is slightly different, but stable.
Edit: I can’t wait to play every game qued with friends vs randoms… will be great lols I am sure.
I’m with Inferno here as well. There are many possible and powerful combinations possible in LoL, but in the end it usually comes down to the fact that you need a little bit of everything. This is impossible to achieve without being able to coordinate with your team before the game starts.
The hard part for SD is now to make every class and bodytype ‘necessary’. That way you get the most varied matches, because every possible class will be in the team. If you can’t choose beforehand, there’ll probably be many more selfish players which in previous SD games meant more medics. I recall tokamak complaining about the amount of medics on the ETQW forums, is that what you want?
Well, since you can’t change your body type without having to quit and reconnect, I don’t think they are trying to make all bodytype “necessary”, or it will fail badly.
Red herring, we’re not talking about different levels here, the tournaments in WoW are being played on maximum level only with even gear. The point still stands.
In LoL however (I like this system more than dota), you play a much more balanced game. You have 0 idea what your opponents are using, but you do get the chance to agree on a setup with your team. There is not necessarily a right or wrong way to set this up (You do need to be smart about it), but it helps to create a more even spread of abilities and characters.
And because people always go for an even spread, the probability of different teams ends up in a bell curve, where as when you don’t get to adjust to what your team-mates are using (in body-type and abillities), the team set up will be completely random, which gives a much more interesting foundation to play games on. You will be challenged to think about odd teams.
That’s an great point actually! All this encourages people to hit the servers together with friends. Playing socially has the benefit of offering you certainty. Great incentive.
[QUOTE=jazevec;231955]Fear of change.
Random factors were put in strategy games (and board games) to train army officers better. You never know about everything and chances are never symmetric. Surprises are unavoidable (“No plan survives the contact with the enemy”). There are differences in army size, quality, positioning, terrain etc. Officers were supposed to learn adaptation.
Starcraft players and other competitive players hate that. A map should look like a tennis field. You should always know what enemy is capable of. Unsurprisingly, Starcraft is a shallow game. Players will spend hours honing their fast clicking skills, but there’s a glass ceiling for strategy and tactics.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I can see something in that. Competitive gamers tend to be control-freaks, completely leveled playing fields indeed lower the skill-ceiling by a lot as it lowers the importance of creativity and improvisation in the games. They want to be able to ‘grind’ a skill and don’t want any surprises that might force them to tap into new resources.
[QUOTE=tokamak;232042]
Yeah I can see something in that. Competitive gamers tend to be control-freaks, completely leveled playing fields indeed lower the skill-ceiling by a lot as it lowers the importance of creativity and improvisation in the games. They want to be able to ‘grind’ a skill and don’t want any surprises that might force them to tap into new resources.[/QUOTE]
The ironic part is that skill can still be measured in assymetric games:
AB/BA (Stopwatch): works nice for objective-based games like ET:QW, Natural Selection or Left 4 Dead. You change sides after one match.
Play a few more matches. Luck runs away, skill doesn’t. Unless the game is as random as Magic: The Gathering, best players will still win more and float to the top.
At some point an element of randomness or bluffing is required to prevent a game from getting stale. Each game that is fully deterministic can be solved. Once solved, all decision making is gone because perfect moves are known. Tic Tac Toe is a solved game. Checkers has been solved, too (forces a draw):
Only mathematicians are interested in solved games. Not all games are strictly deterministic, but those that aspire to be free or almost free of randomness will be decided by that rare roll of a die or fast fingers.
Well all I can say now is that overall I will not be too troubled with many of the problems I can see. Competitive players will form the game into something that best fits our view of play style in a promod (though I wish it wasn’t necessary) for league play of course; maybe even propubs if necessary. I imagine that it won’t be too limiting (with a max 8v8), but it will most likely change many values and selection systems. The real issue of most of these arguments is to ensure that the pure game is fun for everyone; that is fun for everyone and not just those with 1k hours. The last thing competitive gamers want is a dead game, because then there is no competition. That is pretty much the truth of it (not in a selfish way either). When people’s biggest concerns about games relate to things like “no l33t snipers, gimme XP, slash killers make me rage, explodey stuffs, etc”, a lot of more important and actual issues get ignored. As long as the game can hold its player base I will be that much happier. I can ensure you that I will be the first to exploit any design flaws I have foreseen in the game, and if it suddenly it feels less like a challenge and more one-sided, well you can just deal with the situation :).
Excuse my ignorance (a genuine query), but isn’t it the leagues and ladder admins that determine the rules and not the players themselves? From back in my clan days (quite a while ago in RtCW, Q3 and early W:ET), the servers were set up to mirror the league rules to keep consistency in gameplay, even down to graphics settings… you seem to be talking here as if everything will be decided by some mass democracy. In fact I doubt any one here will have a say on the rules of comp play at all, or at least a very small few who have sway.
That’s true, but experience will tell what the best setup for competition is. Rulesets are determined by the league admins, but I expect league admins to pick rules that make the game ‘fair and balanced’ ©