Attackers and Defenders

(BrigandSk(A)) #21

Most players still have to learn that in Brink we are both teams and all classes. We are supposed to play every roll in the game and every side. Get over it!

(.Chris.) #22

Didn’t I just say you wouldn’t just reverse the objective order and roles?

What you gibbering on about and to who?

(light_sh4v0r) #23

lol Brigand, that was random :tongue:

(tokamak) #24

Sure you did, but I’m already taken that into account. It remains a turd of an idea. Take container city we know that map. How the hell would you turn that one around? Why the heck would one team need to reach the peer out of the slums? What story can you think about that?

Same for reactor or any ETQW map. It always starts from a meaningless location towards a meaningful location. The maps are just not meant to be reversed, even if you think about different objectives.

(Jess Alon) #25

That would be cool. Like the retreating team trying to withdraw with their bot could have a limited number of spawns and the team pursuing could try to exhaust their spawns before they escape.

(Cankor) #26

[QUOTE=tokamak;258473]Sure you did, but I’m already taken that into account. It remains a turd of an idea. Take container city we know that map. How the hell would you turn that one around? Why the heck would one team need to reach the peer out of the slums? What story can you think about that?
[/QUOTE]

Hey, they did it in BC2 and it worked there, ever think about that??? So they had destroy MCom A, Mcom B, and Mcom C; and then they completly changed it around and it was destroy Mcom C, Mcom B and then Mcom A. No reason that shouldn’t work perfectly fine in Brink too.

(H0RSE) #27

BC2 has no story or depth - Brink does. Even if the maps had nothing to do with the main story, they would still need to make some kind of sense.

(madoule) #28

totally agree with you on the first part!

why that? its a map and not with the narrative SD offers in the main story. nothing of that sort was present on W:ET / ETQW maps - our often cited role models. we are talking simple maps not alternative /added campigns. its just for funsies

(LyndonL) #29

The Security team infiltrated the main area on the way to their objective… Then the Resistance’s reinforcements arrive and surround the area. Security has to bust out of their surrounds and back to their helicopter that they arrived in.

(Apples) #30

I still think you guyz are stupid or not at all getting the point…

I’m not talking about container shizzle for christ’s sake! I’m talking bout you lost a territory, you fight to get it back, is it that hard :rolleyes:

grow a pair and learn how to drink properly please!

(.Chris.) #31

I agree with apples, I need a cold shower now.

(tokamak) #32

You said:

Can already see a mirrored map pack, with the security having to push their way on destructed maps (which were once clean) in order to gain them back…

The point is that in BRINK the teams are fighting over objectives rather than territory. The Security have no interest in a map like container city other than that a suspicious package is being kept there. The Resistance has no interest in ‘owning’ the reactor, they just want to destroy it.

This isn’t about area control, it’s about taking/destroying facilities. You can’t mirror that.

(.Chris.) #33

Heaven forbid that we get content that doesn’t tie into the super awesome story.

Not everything has to be part of the main game or make a great deal of sense, see all them zombie modes in games nowadays or CTF and TDM modes, I’m sure apples was just trying to come up with a way we could get some extra gameplay content using existing assets to minimise production time and costs.

(BioSnark) #34

[quote=tokamak;258554]The point is that in BRINK the teams are fighting over objectives rather than territory. The Security have no interest in a map like container city other than that a suspicious package is being kept there. The Resistance has no interest in ‘owning’ the reactor, they just want to destroy it.

This isn’t about area control, it’s about taking/destroying facilities. You can’t mirror that.[/quote]

The security can try to escort a defecting resistance leader out of container city. The security can try to retake the reactor before resistance fighters can weaponize dirty materials. You can knit pick any individual idea but coming up with new objectives to dramatically alter gameplay existing maps is not an astronomically difficult task. It’s not much harder than coming up with ideas for new maps and much, much easier to implement.

Revisiting maps is not inherently bad for story telling. If done well, it’s beneficial because it can make the map less of a static level and more an actual environment. HL2 is a good example of this with its alteration of C17 from police state in the beginning to war zone at the end.

(Cankor) #35

Actually, I was being Ironic. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #36

In that case you should simply build new maps based on a new story. It means that the ark could be divided in differents segment. Half of shipyard with half of container city or whatever. That way you would get actual new maps without simply regurgitating the same chewed out crap.

(SockDog) #37

I like the idea of reusing maps, either via mirroring/playing them back to front or making alterations based on existing tactics (HEATMAPS!!) to force new ones (close of paths, create new bottlenecks). Nice and cheap to do, adds variety and value to the game.

As has been said, the narrative argument is just a weak herring based soup. You’re going to be playing these maps over and over, hundreds of times, where is narrative consistency in that?

Nobody is saying this should replace new content only that it’s a very viable addition. I don’t get your opposition. New maps take time and cost money. Reusing existing maps with different objectives and small alterations can provide totally new gameplay at a very low cost. Cankor also provided a very good example of a narratively strong game that reused a setting to continue telling a story.

(tokamak) #38

My position is that even re-using new maps is a waste of resources. But this discussion has been had many times before for other things. One side there’s the moar=moar crowd who just want to see moar, doesn’t matter what is added to it, as long as it is moar regardless of the quality regardless of cost vs substance, just moar, and on the other side, well, there happens to be just me.

(Apples) #39

yeah because I’m the type to want moar pink hatz :rolleyes:

negativity at its finest!

(.Chris.) #40

No one in this thread as indicated that they just want ‘moar’ regardless of quality, nice one jumping to conclusions and trying to take the high ground on the subject, yet again…

Re-using maps is a relatively low cost approach to providing additional content that has the potential to yield fantastic results, where’s the problem with this?