Battle for the Ark...pointless?

(its al bout security) #21

[QUOTE=KAS–Will;339696]I like what their doing with it, despite it not meaning much… still interesting to see what faction is better or has better odds at winning at certain maps. What’s funny is I can see why Resistance dominates on Container City, and Security at Refuel. :stuck_out_tongue:

@It’s al bout security
Go check 360’s stats. :stuck_out_tongue: I honestly would rather see Resistance win, however I am playing Security, because I like fighting for the under dogs, to much team stacking.[/QUOTE]

i am so sad. that its true, many matches though i have played its like a team of 8 always spamming container city with no enemies till i get there. thats real ridiculousness

i dunno it really cant be helped as you start as a default team. i used to always switch but i dont care much anymore just play 2 have fun.

(iFork) #22

Easy solution: Faction preference option in the class preference menu.

(zenstar) #23

2 Arks: 1 Ark for when you’re playing your preffered side and a second “what if” Ark. What if I hadn’t made the choice to be security and ended up fighting on Chen’s side? <- stats go to the alternate Ark.

(iFork) #24

That seems like a major effort just to bypass the new problem they created.

btw I like your picture it brings out your colour

(wolfnemesis75) #25

Just another layer while you are playing. All it is. It is for fun. Thats the point.

(Shinigami) #26

[QUOTE=QUIK420;339339]Does anyone else see the battle for the Ark and who controls what levels/parts as pretty much pointless? I mean if this was a game like MAG where once you joined a faction you could only play as that faction then it would make more sense. But as it is if you are on the security you can fight for the resistance and vice versa.

I used to not care about playing on the resistance side before the stats page was up because i just cared about the win. However, since the stats site went up I find myself constantly wanting to switch over to the security side even if the teams are unbalanced because I want security to win the battle for the Ark.

Just seems like an odd implementation for a game that doesn’t really have two separate sides at all. Just seems like its sole accomplishment is to make people want to stack sides in favor of whatever faction they like more. :confused:[/QUOTE]

You are right. it does kinda makes it pointless. But mag had it even worse, and i know because i played it. Here in brink people can switch sides and keep balance, while in MAG people would just switch over to the winning side thus creating a ridiculous lack of balance.

But in hindsight, brink and MAG are very different. MAG became unbalanced because all the goodd players went to the same side. When it comes to playing 128 vs 128 that is a huge deal. But in brink where its 8 vs 8, i feel there is less room for balance conflicts.

(QUIK420) #27

Personally id rather they just take it out. That way I can just play a game for the win and not be like “damn I wish I wasn’t on resistance because this win will make my characters (mostly security) lose.” But really Im getting over it i just want to play fun full games haha

(wolfnemesis75) #28

^Why take it out? Seriously? It is mostly for fun. Gee whiz. You never thought that it’d be cool with this dynamic to add a layer of drama to a MP match?

Does it matter in COD what side is doing anything at all? There’s no real story at all in those kinds of games beyond differentiating who is on your team.

(QUIK420) #29

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;339936]^Why take it out? Seriously? It is mostly for fun. Gee whiz. You never thought that it’d be cool with this dynamic to add a layer of drama to a MP match?

Does it matter in COD what side is doing anything at all? There’s no real story at all in those kinds of games beyond differentiating who is on your team.[/QUOTE]

Well because it doesn’t really add anything. It just shows that more people are playing games as the resistance or on resistance defense maps. I hop into many games on my 3 main characters (all security) and many times will be on the resistance side. I kick @arse and stay in the game because it may have lots of people. So I’m basically kicking @arse for the opposite faction. The way it is it will just be the resistance winning every week and that’s bleh (pretty much the same as not having the map / sidestory). Doesn’t really show much when they setup is the same every week and there are no real sides.

On PS3 resistance wins: Container city, shipyard, reactor, aquarium, terminal, and barely resort.

Security wins: refuel, sec tower, sometimes barely resort.

This has been the same thing every week since the stats site went up live. And its not like the community is growing rapidly so this will continue to be the way it goes until the DLC comes out then maybe things will change up a bit.

(wolfnemesis75) #30

[QUOTE=QUIK420;339956]Well because it doesn’t really add anything. It just shows that more people are playing games as the resistance or on resistance defense maps. I hop into many games on my 3 main characters (all security) and many times will be on the resistance side. I kick @arse and stay in the game because it may have lots of people. So I’m basically kicking @arse for the opposite faction. The way it is it will just be the resistance winning every week and that’s bleh (pretty much the same as not having the map / sidestory). Doesn’t really show much when they setup is the same every week and there are no real sides.

On PS3 resistance wins: Container city, shipyard, reactor, aquarium, terminal, and barely resort.

Security wins: refuel, sec tower, sometimes barely resort.

This has been the same thing every week since the stats site went up live. And its not like the community is growing rapidly so this will continue to be the way it goes until the DLC comes out then maybe things will change up a bit.[/QUOTE]

^Not true. Its more your perception than reality. The Battle for Ark adds a layer of you as part of an overall tug-of war struggle. Do you matter as a lone soldier in a World War? When the outcome is decided by the whole? Or are you doing your part for the war?

You can choose to play for a specific faction, and people do just that. Over time you may see people only playing as one or the other. Also, its for fun. Gee whiz, why so negative?

(QUIK420) #31

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;339964]^Not true. Its more your perception than reality. The Battle for Ark adds a layer of you as part of an overall tug-of war struggle. Do you matter as a lone soldier in a World War? When the outcome is decided by the whole? Or are you doing your part for the war?

You can choose to play for a specific faction, and people do just that. Over time you may see people only playing as one or the other. Also, its for fun. Gee whiz, why so negative?[/QUOTE]

Well the reason I dislike it I stated in my OP. It makes me want to switch to the security in every game even if that would mean stacking 8v2 in a big teams game. Because i dont want to give the resistance ANY win since they are in the lead already. I want the battle for the Ark to be pure blue and that means playing for the security even if the games are unbalanced.

Id rather just play to win in any game im in and try to keep the teams balanced. But as it is it takes a lot more for me to switch to resistance now vs before the stats site went live.

(H0RSE) #32

Literally impossible? lol, you say so. Whenever I play with friends, we always have 5-8 people on the same team. A lot of people are putting far too much emphasis on a lobby system. Yeah, they are convenient and make things easier, but they are by no means a must have feature.

(bastuden) #33

I am really disappointed in some of you, why even play online games, you guys should get off the internet, no disrespect. See this is whats wrong with the gaming community, too many care bears, the fact that your saying we should not have a stat tracker that track the online battle is absolutely crazy, what your suggesting completely goes against the story of this game and who give a freak if one side is better or has better players, it happens, someone has to loose in war, the cool part is even if your side is constantly loosing overall, there will always be a great clan on either side, so this concept does not mean you will loose every match! It does not mean you will never level up or anything… Man I am seriously disappointed, that kind of thinking is holding us back, this is the next step in online shooter gaming, persistent world combat! ITS THE BATTLE OF THE ARK FOR CHRIST SAKE! Guys please I am begging you to consider what I am saying, you know what, don’t even think about MAG I don’t want you guys who don’t like MAG to be thinking of that and completely look over this concept that really is need and fits this game so well. There is a way to balance everything I am sure, but one side has to win and one side has to loose guys, come on!

Maybe somehow the bots also have battles going on between themselves while we play to keep this balance and if one side reign supreme for far too long somehow the bots can balance it, I’m not sure but come on guys can you not see how this could make online gaming better? If you love Brink now, all this is going to do is make you feel even more invested in Brink. Also I don’t care how good one side is, they most like wont be able to dominate all parts of the virtual map, I am sure they will be stages (like now) Where one faction will do a better job of maintaining control. I mean are you guys seriously at this point not tired of just simply shooting people just to shoot people, the persistence world FPS idea that MAG came up with gives the FPS concept more purpose, please guys rally with me. I got a friend in school right now for game design who believe this is something that can still be implement like I said.

As a matter of fact this concept also fixes the lobby system, (if you guys read the idea I posted here) so this is something they can add in there instead of just making a standard lobby. We just simply take the map from the stat site down and put it in the game and make it interactive.

(wolfnemesis75) #34

^what he said. Most other games just involve you randomly playing and shooting and K/D beasting. Battle for Ark adds another layer of depth to a game with tons of depth. Gee, whiz and it adds some fun. What the heck is wrong with that? You have a say in how the conflict goes each week, whether you want to admit that or not, or despite a negative and defeatist viewpoint.

(wolfnemesis75) #35

[QUOTE=QUIK420;339968]Well the reason I dislike it I stated in my OP. It makes me want to switch to the security in every game even if that would mean stacking 8v2 in a big teams game. Because i dont want to give the resistance ANY win since they are in the lead already. I want the battle for the Ark to be pure blue and that means playing for the security even if the games are unbalanced.

Id rather just play to win in any game im in and try to keep the teams balanced. But as it is it takes a lot more for me to switch to resistance now vs before the stats site went live.[/QUOTE]

Either way, you still are having an impact on how the war fairs each week. Thats the point. You could be helping both sides, and that’s ok too. Maybe you are a double-agent. I don’t know. Or maybe you are like Jarlaxle, you play both sides to your benefit! A Rogue changing sides based on who pays you the most… even if its only in your mind.:cool:

(QUIK420) #36

I dunno I dont mind the battle for the ark and I like the stats site. I just feel like there really isnt a battle for the ark going on if there are no sides. Plus its not like the battle is dynamic and has changed week to week it hasnt. So far the Resistance has won the same exact maps and has won the war for the week. Itd be better if the wins were dynamically changing but as it stands the outcome of each part of the Ark is the way I stated in another comment. Resistance wins all maps except for sec tower and refuel, and possibly a close fight on terminal. Been the same since the battle started and looks like its going to stay the same. But like i said hopefully the DLC and patch will bring in more players and a better battle for the ark dynamic.

(wolfnemesis75) #37

Are you on PS3? Because I noticed that the two factions are deadlocked on PS3. Xbox has variations in the numbers week to week. And more players playing Brink overall. That probably has something to do with it. Also,

On a Side Note: I think PS3 gammers have had a better acceptance of Brink. PSN being down was a blessing in some ways in that regard in terms of Brink being so different from other FPS games. I think they were forced to play nothing but Campaign at first and did not jump into MP right away, and so were more adjusted to the style of play of Brink when they did jump in to MP. I wonder if that is a fair assessment?

(QUIK420) #38

[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;340091]Are you on PS3? Because I noticed that the two factions are deadlocked on PS3. Xbox has variations in the numbers week to week. And more players playing Brink overall. That probably has something to do with it. Also,

On a Side Note: I think PS3 gammers have had a better acceptance of Brink. PSN being down was a blessing in some ways in that regard in terms of Brink being so different from other FPS games. I think they were forced to play nothing but Campaign at first and did not jump into MP right away, and so were more adjusted to the style of play of Brink when they did jump in to MP. I wonder if that is a fair assessment?[/QUOTE]

Ya im on the PS3. And you have to reload the page to see the battle us Sec guys def arent winning lol (think it was 63 / 37 for the resistance). Id go with a tie in a second lol. I did see a little more variety when I went to the Xbox site though. I dunno I just wanna go back to just going for the win instead of trying to save the arc from those pesky resistance members lol.

(wolfnemesis75) #39

Stopwatch is an underutilized mode that accomplishes what you are asking for. I’d only play Stopwatch if more people played it! Because you are actually competing head-to-head (both sides have to defend and attack.) I am hoping once Clan support begins, this is the go-to mode for like-minded gamers. :slight_smile:

(KAS--Will) #40

[QUOTE=its al bout security;339703]i am so sad. that its true, many matches though i have played its like a team of 8 always spamming container city with no enemies till i get there. thats real ridiculousness

i dunno it really cant be helped as you start as a default team. i used to always switch but i dont care much anymore just play 2 have fun.[/QUOTE]

Not trying to Brag here… but it’s true…

Whenever I play, I usually do really well and kill really well, however, I play Nothing but soldier, so I never can do the objectives, so I rely on Bots to do the work for me… the only time my team wins, is when I’m out numbered, (usually, 3-5 v 1), and I dominate them so bad, they want to stop getting owned, and go to my team, THEN security wins… however, there’s not team balancing system, so there will usually be a 5 v 1 game, and my bots AI doesn’t get any better, if anything, worst. I can take on 2 guys usually, 3 at most, but my bots can’t even kill 1 guy and they always have a guy on the other team getting most kills and I’ll check my stats later and I’ll have 20+ kills… thus meaning the bots don’t do any better even though there’s only 1 of me… :confused:

I should make a post about that to bring it to attention. :slight_smile: