as Angry Joe's Review of Brink states "Brink needs another game mode or two" think DB


(Bloodbite) #41

I believe it was Badman that posted a sort of statement-of-intent about what SD wanted to achieve with DB awhile ago, around when the alpha actually started. One of those things was to make sure that the game could translate into competitive play/use without having to be modded or restricted. One game, properly designed and intelligently balanced.

There’s stuff those of us that like to treat our games as a serious challenge of skill that we want to see in, and this is the right phase to discuss and argue what we think could work about things, and why it might not. It might sound divisive but the reality is, this is still SD’s game. We’re helping, but we’re not crossing that line in the sand and becoming fully fledged members of the development team.

The key result that we’re all aiming for is something fun and enjoyable. It might not seem like the serious stuff is fun to you if you don’t take it seriously, but those are the subtle touches that tend to make the good pub games better simply because those little features, like getting this skin thing sorted out… it leans a little bit more towards instinctual abilities, and then the matches start to feel more exciting… or at least have the potential to be more exciting amongst good players (and I emphasise just ‘good’, not ‘pro’), than to not consider them at all.

Yes some ideas about competitive play are outright restrictive, but it’s better we get those out, poke holes as to why it doesn’t suit the goals of the game (not just the design but the marketing side of building and maintaining a longterm F2P community that aren’t a bunch of trolls there simply cause it’s ‘free’)… there’s always the possibility it can spark a mutated idea from one of us or one of the SD folk that simply hearing about it triggers that chain of events that leads to a new idea.

Isn’t that the biggest problem with all these half arsed AAA titles on the market these days? We look at them and it’s so obvious nobody was involved in the development process that tried exploring the extreme limits of what’s “serious” about gaming… and in the end we feel robbed because they’re always too easy, or something just doesn’t feel quite finished.

As alpha contributors, I daresay we’ll also play a relatively decent part in promoting the game after it gets out. WE will be the word of mouth that can actually answer questions in game or in forums as to why the game is like “this” and not “that” and why it can lead to “this level of happy fun time” but “you won’t know that until you spend a week learning that map properly, then you’ll see how that tactic really pays off and makes the game seem amazing.”

And perhaps most important of all, we can’t forget our ultimate roles in this. We’re here to debate amongst each other what we want to see, what we think will work and what won’t… but we are NOT the creators of this game. Yes our needs as part of the playerbase have to be met to a certain degree, but the final decision has to be based on what the creators can live with. That fine line between making a good game and a game that will be popular enough to be profitable.


(HellToupee) #42

[QUOTE=Bloodbite;438561]By sequential, I meant how the maps were split into sections where you couldn’t revisit any part of the first half of the map. Only Brink did that, and I don’t remember hearing anyone say anything positive about it.l That whole transition cutscene always felt like an interruption. I think that was a great advantage to RTCW/W:ET… having a covie in disguise by pass the first breaching objectives to help get an engie or whoever behind the front line and direct to the final objective. That was truly the magic touch of having/playing a covert ops ontop of the sniping and disguise-oops-insta-backstab… kept everyone on edge about acts of subterfuge.

I didn’t have the same experience with choke points as you though, not amongst people who played properly. The server I was playing on (which was mostly made up of folks from a still active aussie ETQW server, they set up their own Brink server from the get go, so to all of us there Brink was a big step down as far as the complexity aspect goes)… those chokes points were impossible to pass when both teams were well populated and evenly balanced in terms of skill. Like that missile launch mission. It was impossible to hack the launch controls with the defenders spawning too close (like you said), and there being too much cover for defenders and like 5% for the offensive team. It didn’t matter how we mixed it up with players on either team, the defenders always won, and the perks/abilities made no impact when trying to break that choke… or at least not an impact that would last long enough to get the job done.[/QUOTE]

Functionally it was the same, W:ET maps consisted of sections, that you could cheese on a few of them was simply poor map design, you never went back to the starting half of Oasis or fuel dump once you got past the first objective.

Also RTCW didn’t have covies and few maps allowed for ninja wins, only maps like Destruction which even then was far harder to get away with.

Choke points and difficulty of doing the objective are two seperate things, choke points concern reaching objectives, the hack objective on the rocket launch map was far less defendable from a choke point of a view than the very first objective but the first one was way easier because it was a repair objective.


(Bloodbite) #43

[QUOTE=HellToupee;438649]Functionally it was the same, W:ET maps consisted of sections, that you could cheese on a few of them was simply poor map design, you never went back to the starting half of Oasis or fuel dump once you got past the first objective.

Also RTCW didn’t have covies and few maps allowed for ninja wins, only maps like Destruction which even then was far harder to get away with.

Choke points and difficulty of doing the objective are two seperate things, choke points concern reaching objectives, the hack objective on the rocket launch map was far less defendable from a choke point of a view than the very first objective but the first one was way easier because it was a repair objective.[/QUOTE]

Ah that’s right, I couldn’t remember what that major class thing was that was missing from RTCW… covies.

I think not needing to go back in a map and not having the option at all makes a significant difference. Take Fuel Dump for example… it may have been relatively bad form to sneak behind the allied final spawn point and rebuild the axis command post while everyone else was defending the dump, then tap out some allies in the process of running back to the front line (you and them both)… but it worked as a distraction tactic for pubs cause there was almost always at least one person gullible enough to go see why there was activity back there.

What was that map in ETQW where there was that portal to the antarctic? That made a massive territory redundant… but in that instance it made sense… it wasn’t an artificial means of forcing the frontline to stay in a certain region simply to avoid wanderers.

Just one of those things that needs to be considered carefully. Once you deprive people of choice, it doesn’t matter if 90% of them will never think of a practical (or miserable) way of using that choice… making it obvious they are being deprived, that their options are being shrunk… it has an adverse psychological effect. Whiners aside, it can even change the more serious players in how they tactically think of things. Feeling boxed in leads to fewer rationale choices… and we can’t have everyone using the same suicidal play style as me now can we!?!
:tongue:


(chippy) #44

I’d definately like to see “infantry only” maps.

Like stealing the EV launcher ammunition on White Chapel is pretty nice with the mechanics we have got right now. One could chance it and just make a dash for it, but chances are you won’t get it out. Mix that up with some team coordination and you can get really tense fights when it comes down to it.

Would be easier for newcomers as well, who are completely new to these kind of games (read: “payload”, multiple stages each with different objectives, etc).