Assault Container City in New Brink Gameplay Footage

(tokamak) #61

Having part of the screen obscured by ironsights is part of the balance.

(light_sh4v0r) #62

I think the decreased mousespeed is enough balance on its own.

(Cankor) #63

[QUOTE=SockDog;242696]@Cankor

I’m of the thinking that stuff like Mission Selection and XP sounds fantastic on paper and swiftly turns into a flustercluck when people actually use it. If SD, after months of testing, are skipping the mission selection then that says to me it’s unnecessary except to augment the XP and radio chatter parts of the game.
[/QUOTE]

yep, we’re on the same page as far as the mission system goes. Even one extra step people won’t do in the heat of battle. It’s unlrealistic to think they will. That’s why i’m kind of glad to see the additional award for choosing the mission si so small (2XP). Of couse that could just be a placeholder until they work it out. having the auto-chatter would have been brilliant in the days before VOIP, as it is now it’s not nearly as important.

Of course, the other thing the mission system does (I think), is give you a path towards the objective you’ve chosen. So that will be an encuragement and another reason to use it. So maybe when you add them all up the mission selection starts to become more compelling.

It’s possible that they are actually awarding more XP to kills depending on your class. For instance, as a soldier, your primary role would be to kill other players, whereas as a medic your primary role would be to heal and revive. So the medic may get lots of XP for reving and healing and less for killing (compared to the soldier).

The soilder can of course augment his XP by handing out ammo, but that’s not necessarily his “primary” role. If the ammo awards are on a par with the health awards, the soldier will fall behind compared to the medic in the XP awards becasue the medic gets tons for reviving. So possibly the counter to that is more for kills.

I actually suggested something like this a couple years back when I wrote a post on the old ETQW forums titled something like “an XP system which encourages team based behaviour”. So to me, if this is what is happening, it makes lots of sense.

Of course, it could also just be we’re seeing the mechanic where the closer you are to the objective the more XP you get for kills, as well as the other parts hinted at where killing/reviving the important guys count more.

It does seem like SD has taken the whole thing to heart about using XP to reward team based play, much much more than anyone has done before.

SD seems to be setting new bars all over the place with this game:

  1. SMART
  2. XP awards which really encouarge team play.
  3. A better melee system (knockdown first then kill insetad of stupid insta-kill).
  4. Single/Multi-player lines blurred.
  5. Player customizations (although I don’t particularly care about that it seems that lots of people do).
    etc.

Add all this to SD’s already perfected objective style gameplay and a focus towards making the console verison as good as the PC version (which didn’t happen in ETQW) and we have the makings for a game that will show all the COD and BF players what they’ve been missing all these years by not spending the time to learn how to play ETQW :slight_smile: I’m kind of tired hearing console mags talk about the “brilliant” rush mode in Bad Company 2 when in fact it’s just a partial implementation of what SD has been doing since day 1.

The SD guys have deserved to get rich far more than the guys at infinity ward, so maybe now it will finally happen (although I have no idea as the developer if they get a percentage of the profits or if it all goes to the publisher for taking the risk?).

OK, yeah, color me a fan boy.

(tokamak) #64

How would you know? You can’t possibly know the spread reduction already.

(BioSnark) #65

Aren’t you both talking about balance?

(without having played the game)

(Nikto) #66

Qureshi, the guy who gave the speed buff, is a medic.
you can see a cross next to his name if you look carefully :wink:

edit: and you can’t be killed, only taken down, when you have the ability wich allows you to still fire i expect they can shoot you again so you lose it (95% certain)

(LyndonL) #67

The first thing I thought of when I saw that was they are trying to discourage rambo medics etc…
Medics can’t get to the top of the (XP) scoreboard by shooting, they are forced to do their role if they want the points.

Forcing this is even more important with the addition of self revive.

(tokamak) #68

[QUOTE=BioSnark;242779]Aren’t you both talking about balance?

(without having played the game)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but there’s a difference between saying that limited vision can be part of the balance and saying a certain factor is ‘enough’.

(light_sh4v0r) #69

That remark was ‘in general’. ETQWpro for instance has the option to turn off your gunmodel only when scoping. I really like that feature, but it doesn’t unbalance scoping. If you scope in when you shouldn’t, you’re still in trouble because you can’t twitch your aim fast enough when someone is jumping around you.

You’re right though, I can’t draw any conclusions about Brink yet, was just expressing my experiences with previous games.

(badfish4444) #70

Wow, I never realized how many gamers are just whiney complainers. “Oh take off iron sites or I won’t buy the game”. How about this, don’t use them and what the hell is with this PC gamer vs console? Who gives a crap? Everyone on this demo had the “medium” body type. The leaner build will be faster and the heavy will me slower. If you want another W:ET or Quake wars just go play them and stop hammering SD for creating a game that caters to more than one type of person.

I mean come on. They have been given a multi-million dollar (pound) budget and they have to make that money back by sales. Yes, that’s right, sales is what fuels EVERYTHING in the world. If sales are bad then no more games and SD goes under.

Brink looks great, it has it’s own unique twist on things and most people like the iron sites for immersion. Last I checked video games were made to be fun before anything else. If you want to go dick joust with some dudes by all means proceed outside, but leave it off here.

(potkettleblack) #71

Thanks for the awesome input.
I certainly was unaware that one of the purposes of developing a game, was to make a profit.
I would shake your hand if I could, to thank you for that brilliant insight.

Thats all I wanted to add. Please continue, whinging about the whingers.

<3 potkettleblack

(H0RSE) #72

[QUOTE=badfish4444;243038]Wow, I never realized how many gamers are just whiney complainers. “Oh take off iron sites or I won’t buy the game”. How about this, don’t use them and what the hell is with this PC gamer vs console? Who gives a crap? Everyone on this demo had the “medium” body type. The leaner build will be faster and the heavy will me slower. If you want another W:ET or Quake wars just go play them and stop hammering SD for creating a game that caters to more than one type of person.

I mean come on. They have been given a multi-million dollar (pound) budget and they have to make that money back by sales. Yes, that’s right, sales is what fuels EVERYTHING in the world. If sales are bad then no more games and SD goes under. [/QUOTE]
First off, you do realize you are posting on the SD forums, not just some general gaming forum…many of the members here love SD for the brilliant job SD has done with their previous games, and seeing that they are making a new title (Brink) they just want to see that same greatness they loved in W:ET and QW appear in Brink.

About the ironsight issue - previous SD games either had no ironsights or if they did, there wasn’t a heavy focus on using them. One of the key draws to their games were fast, run and gun action, involving anything from crouching, sprinting, strafe-jumping, etc. - stopping to use your ironsights every 20 seconds kinda kills the atmosphere in that department. It would be like if Infinity Ward released a new COD and removed ironsights - you would see similar backlash.

Having ironsights in a game isn’t whats bad - having it so not using them puts you a great disadvantage, is what’s bad. If a game has the option to hip fire or use sights, then each option should be a viable choice. But games like BC2 and MW2 seem to think otherwise, making it so you pretty much have to use ironsights to hit anything outside of spitting distance - it’s not always as simple as “don’t use them if you don’t like them.”

Also, your talk about “sales fuels everything” is irrelevant, seeing that the inclusion of ironsights is obviously off-putting to members of the community. Basically, your rant reads like, “since the majority of their market (console gamers) like having ironsights, let’s put them in and screw the rest.”

Brink looks great, it has it’s own unique twist on things and most people like the iron sites for immersion. Last I checked video games were made to be fun before anything else. If you want to go dick joust with some dudes by all means proceed outside, but leave it off here.

First off, based off first hand experience, it would be more accurate to say most console gamers like the ironsights for immersion. Second, you say “video games are meant to be fun,” without even realizing that perhaps having to use ironsights in a shooter isn’t someone’s idea of “fun.”

(Cankor) #73

[QUOTE=LyndonL;242795]The first thing I thought of when I saw that was they are trying to discourage rambo medics etc…
Medics can’t get to the top of the (XP) scoreboard by shooting, they are forced to do their role if they want the points.

Forcing this is even more important with the addition of self revive.[/QUOTE]

yeah, it’s pretty much the same thing. If you encourage the medic to fullfill his intended role (healing and rezzing his team mates) you are automatically discouraging him from going rambo all the time.

So if you are into killing you would choose a class who’s role revolves around that aspect (soldier). Using that same logic it would make sense to give operatives a bunch of XP for killing other operatives, since they are the ones who can seek them out. Maybe there’s a mechanic where they “spot” them, and if they are subsequently killed they get an XP boost.

They actually did something similar in ETQW, but it was just more subtle. For instance, the field ops gets more XP for killing stuff with artillery than otherwise (it was hard to figure out though because damage amounts varied depending on what you were using). I might have this screwed up but thats how I remember it anyway (most of my research was lost when Activision shut down the forums).

All this is of course guesswork because we don’t know right now if they actually do give more (or less) XP for kills based on your class. Like I said, it makes perfect sense to me if they do it that way. Judging by past responses to XP questions (in ETQW) I suspect we won’t be told. Not sure I understand the logic of that other than that it’s obviously still subject to change at this point. Hopefully we will get more info on Brink XP awards than was given out for ETQW … shouldn’t be hard to top “virtually nothing” :slight_smile:

(Reanimator) #74

No Iron sights in TF2 yet that is one of the most popular shooters ever.

(longbow) #75

On computer yes, TF2 is one of the most popular games, but not on console, where Iron sights reign supreme. Here’s my view:

Iron sights are in Brink. They have been seen in almost all recent demos so yws they will be there. Since they are in they must be more accurate(aka have less bullet spread/recoil) than hip firing, otherwise they are 100% useless. The key is to tune the two firing modes to a point where the increased accuracy of iron sights is countered by the increased maneuverability of hip firing. When/if this happens the two will be balanced and the choice of which firing mode to use is up to user preference and situational necessity.

Personally i think the sweet spot is to reduced movement speed by 30-50% (depends on weapon) with iron sights, and increase recoil 40-60% (also depends on gun) while hip firing. In this way realism is maintained along with the ability to play either style.

(H0RSE) #76

I remember Rahdo said one of the reasons for having ironsights was simply, “because people are used to using them.”

The spread/recoil in Brink will be significantly less, compared to other ironsight games.

(Nikto) #77

i like iron sights, i like them a lot, first game i played without them, i didn’t really like it…
could be just me, but i find it hard to hit someone that’s a distance away, of wich you can only see a head, while you can’t pinpoint exactly where you want to shoot…

(tokamak) #78

I would hate to see the Brink firefights to become as shallow as in TF2.

(BioSnark) #79

or quake live :slight_smile:

regarding iron sights on consoles, did halo have them? I always thought it didn’t.

(Nikto) #80

[QUOTE=BioSnark;243106]or quake live :slight_smile:

regarding iron sights on consoles, did halo have them? I always thought it didn’t.[/QUOTE]

i doubt they did, wich is probably why people complained it took so many bullets to take someone down. it’s a spray n pray series if ever i saw one^^