I’d venture to say an awesome Medic could turn the tide of a battle and dictate the flow of the game without firing a single shot. Eventually, I will put this theory to the test further. I’ve won a match in Brink with 1 single kill and it was a heated competition against two evenly matched teams too. 
Brink Barrier To Entry Retention Fix/Idea
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#81
thesuzukimethod
(thesuzukimethod)
#82
The defensive bias is unfortunate, that is certain. It’s also a weird mode for people to get used to (or understand) if they dont know what’s happening. In pub play, the bigger(?) problem (for me) is that lots of people seem to not understand the stopwatch aspect. They see the same map is being played again, and they quit out, so the team composition is way too dynamic for it to be an accurate comparison of two teams capability. It does seem to work in the matches that we are organizing amongst people who all know we’re playing (and want to play) stopwatch.
this probably reflects on the larger challenge that Brink attempted to meet - how to open up objective based gameplay to a larger audience (to ensure future SD solvency) w/o watering down the gameplay to the point where the existing fanbase writes it off. TL;DR: Stopwatch (layered on top of the objective based gameplay) is perfectly normal for those who are used to objective based games, but is fundamentally weird to people who are used to TDM and DM and CTF type games where you can just run and gun and be moderately successful.
H0RSE
(H0RSE)
#83
I believe this has much to do with it. I have noticed after years of experience on both PC and console, That the console community is much less…for lack of better word, dedicated? to there games. With systems in place like Best Buy and Gamestop, offering trade in and purchase of used games, and rental systems like Gamefly, console games are bought, sold and traded more than Gallbladders on the Chinese Black Market. This gives them little reason to have to buy any game they are unsure of, and only stick with what is tried and true - which is why the FPS genre (among others) is saturated with sequels and knockoffs.
For the most part, from what I have personally seen, the console market is all about the “flavor of the month.” New games come out, they get played (usually rented) and then dropped for the next new thing to hit, and the process repeats. Why are they gonna waste their time with a new IP, from a developer that is practically unheard of on console, when they can just go back to something they already know (and are good at.)
Compared to standard gamemodes, like TDM and CTF, team based objective shooters are already fighting an uphill battle - the lowest common denominator gamemodes have always reigned king, so if a new class-based team objective FPS comes out, it better be tip top, or it’s just not going to compete/last.
H0RSE
(H0RSE)
#84
How is it absurd? Do you really think that Brink is so easy, that even a brain dead chimp could play it? Brink’s learning curve is so embarrassingly low, that no human could possibly not understand it? If you think that, then you give humanity way too much credit - and I’m just talking about gamers. It is not absurd to think that there are players out there that cannot grasp the concept of Brink. I personally know people who are excellent at the shooting aspect of shooters, but add class actions and objectives, and they fall apart. They wind up just ignoring the “objective” part of “team objective” and stick to just shooting people.
Some people just don’t have the capacity for certain games, whether they aren’t good at them, don’t want to take the time to learn how to play (properly) them, or a multitude of other reasons.
What BS? the console market is larger than PC - there are multiple platforms and more players, so it only makes sense that more console players would be suggesting to add TDM in Brink, based simply on the fact that there are more people in the community, and less team-based shooters.
Console players don’t want a teamwork oriented game. They only want TDM (sure many do but not all).
Yes, I already said this, and I even point out what you did here - most, not all.
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#85
That’s some of what I am getting at! Thanks.
The point of this thread! Cool beans!
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#86
[QUOTE=H0RSE;375090]
Compared to standard gamemodes, like TDM and CTF, team based objective shooters are already fighting an uphill battle - the lowest common denominator gamemodes have always reigned king, so if a new class-based team objective FPS comes out, it better be tip top, or it’s just not going to compete/last.[/QUOTE]Similar to car racing games. People who like car racing games are fine with the latest Forza or Grand Turismo. Release a car racing game but throw in guns strapped to the cars and explosive attacks while racing. (Blur) Now you’ve lost some people.
thesuzukimethod
(thesuzukimethod)
#87
[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;375098]That’s some of what I am getting at! Thanks.
The point of this thread! Cool beans! :)[/QUOTE]
In all honestly, i’ve been a bit busy lately, so i read this thread backwards, and posted before i got back to your initial thread ideas… I really think that SD faced a large challenge for reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum, perhaps even ad nauseum LOL.
I’ve spoke my mind on this enough that I’m not going to rehash it, but sort of see this situation as similar to the critically acclaimed shows (e.g. Arrested Development) that dont really make the artist/director/writer that much money (and typically get cancelled relatively soon, compared to how awesome they are). If they are lucky, they can get some $ to do a new project, albeit with the strings that come with the money. If that project is successful, they now have some legs to stand on for their next project, hopefully not having alienated their initial audience that made the first one successful in the first place. It’s easy to map the WET/QW games onto the critically (but not commercially) successful category, and Brink as the big name/big money part 2 that is supposed to be proof of capacity to a larger audience, even if it had to cut some corners according to the original fans (i hope their sales numbers are enough to justify this, so that we get a part 3, where they return to their critical roots with a bit more momentum…curious what that’s gonna look like.
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#88
The group of guys I play with often (RiF) we’re at the point now where on a map like Sec Tow if we are attacking on Resistance, we don’t even let the Security drop down from the wall after we plant. They never hit the street level without ending up dead by the time their feet hit. This is some of what we are discussing here as well. Or Container City, a random team never gets within 50 meters of the gate! We slide through, one guy plants, and then we cut off all access to that side of the map! Many bring up the defensive bias, but the game is TEAM biased as well; if you know the dudes you play with you just roll random groups of players. This is essentially not the fault of the game itself, but just how life works with good communication.
When we lose even once, it is stunned angry silence. Why, because of the 20 previous matches that weren’t even close. And there are Brink teams better than us, I am sure. 20-1. We’re like the Patriots or something. Ha ha. It just means there’s has to be some gaps.
Where-as in a typical TDM you can be the worst communicator in the world, just focus solely on your kills/favorite camp location, and come out feeling like the ultimate soldier. Like the guys in COD that find a campspot that allows them to target players emerging from spawn. In those games I feel like where’s everyone going? this is boring. But it boils down to just getting gun+getting kills=who wins. And that’s as simple and straight-forward as it gets. 
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#89
[QUOTE=thesuzukimethod;375103]
I’ve spoke my mind on this enough that I’m not going to rehash it, but sort of see this situation as similar to the critically acclaimed shows (e.g. Arrested Development) that dont really make the artist/director/writer that much money (and typically get cancelled relatively soon, compared to how awesome they are). If they are lucky, they can get some $ to do a new project, albeit with the strings that come with the money. [/QUOTE]Firefly.
Humate
(Humate)
#90
[QUOTE=thesuzukimethod;375088]The defensive bias is unfortunate, that is certain. It’s also a weird mode for people to get used to (or understand) if they dont know what’s happening. In pub play, the bigger(?) problem (for me) is that lots of people seem to not understand the stopwatch aspect. They see the same map is being played again, and they quit out, so the team composition is way too dynamic for it to be an accurate comparison of two teams capability. It does seem to work in the matches that we are organizing amongst people who all know we’re playing (and want to play) stopwatch.
this probably reflects on the larger challenge that Brink attempted to meet - how to open up objective based gameplay to a larger audience (to ensure future SD solvency) w/o watering down the gameplay to the point where the existing fanbase writes it off. TL;DR: Stopwatch (layered on top of the objective based gameplay) is perfectly normal for those who are used to objective based games, but is fundamentally weird to people who are used to TDM and DM and CTF type games where you can just run and gun and be moderately successful.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly what will happen in a pub stopwatch match - regardless of game(et/etqw/brink).
In fact i believe this issue was discussed on this board like a 9 or 10 months prior to release, and it was met with a - “we will give an xp incentive for staying”… or something to that effect.
thesuzukimethod
(thesuzukimethod)
#91
[QUOTE=Humate;375121]This is exactly what will happen in a pub stopwatch match - regardless of game(et/etqw/brink).
In fact i believe this issue was discussed on this board like a 9 or 10 months prior to release, and it was met with a - “we will give an xp incentive for staying”… or something to that effect.[/QUOTE]
Yeah this is unfortunate. We arrange lots of stopwatch style matches with grab-bag teams (amongst the folks that play regularly), so the team dynamics are relatively stable - but that takes pre-planning. even with that though, the games are open to anyone who is on friends lists, so you do have the +/- 1-2 that jump in and out as the matches proceed.
We (the folks who play this) really like playing stopwatch, b/c it (obviously) completely mitigates the offense/defense advantage(s).
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#92
Yeah um…so where were you 3 months ago when many people were offering up ideas to make the game better? Some of these “ideas” you “came up” with have been recommended since week 1 lmao. It took you this long to figure it out?
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#93
[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;375029]If you notice I suggested a way to incorporate full teams of friends (clans) into the mix and a place for them to battle it out. Hopefully something like this eventually makes its way to Brink. Because, naturally a group of friends who play regularly together are already pubstomping other players.
Many over the past few weeks have called for Team Balancing and one guy even quit Brink on this forum because there’s no auto-team balance.
Having a Clan Wars section in the menu could alleviate some of the feeling that there’s no chance for randoms/newer players. And I also suggested a way for Lonewolf (solo players) who are used to Brink to get in on the action in the Clan War section as well.
I hope this kind of stuff can be added to Brink, because friends want to play together, and ultimately its unrealistic to expect them to get shuffled against their will to the other team.
Rather than having so many redundant menu options which Brink has currently, and instead steamlining them and providing places to go that accommodate each group of Brinkers would lower the barrier that naturally springs up when you throw everyone together in the mix, and some are randoms, and some are battle-tested teams.
Our concern (the people I play with regularly) is that we potentially drive people away from Brink and cause them to rage quit, because they can’t stop us and we full hold on every map on defense. On Friday, we literally had to wait on Founders tower in a far-off section so the other team could hack. That’s just not fun for anyone. :([/QUOTE]
No! The game is fine the way it is. Just start a room by yourselves and people will join. Or start a community game night. Or set up a private match to play against each other. I don’t know why people keep on trying to change the perfection that is called Brink!
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#94
[QUOTE=wolfnemesis75;375107]The group of guys I play with often (RiF) we’re at the point now where on a map like Sec Tow if we are attacking on Resistance, we don’t even let the Security drop down from the wall after we plant. They never hit the street level without ending up dead by the time their feet hit. This is some of what we are discussing here as well. Or Container City, a random team never gets within 50 meters of the gate! We slide through, one guy plants, and then we cut off all access to that side of the map! Many bring up the defensive bias, but the game is TEAM biased as well; if you know the dudes you play with you just roll random groups of players. This is essentially not the fault of the game itself, but just how life works with good communication.
When we lose even once, it is stunned angry silence. Why, because of the 20 previous matches that weren’t even close. And there are Brink teams better than us, I am sure. 20-1. We’re like the Patriots or something. Ha ha. It just means there’s has to be some gaps.
Where-as in a typical TDM you can be the worst communicator in the world, just focus solely on your kills/favorite camp location, and come out feeling like the ultimate soldier. Like the guys in COD that find a campspot that allows them to target players emerging from spawn. In those games I feel like where’s everyone going? this is boring. But it boils down to just getting gun+getting kills=who wins. And that’s as simple and straight-forward as it gets. :([/QUOTE]
Dude…that’s only because most people that play the game aren’t any good. If more skilled gamers would play Brink believe me you and your team wouldn’t steamroll other teams the way you do right now. Also…if I remember correctly a couple of days ago I was on the other team and we won…and I got most kills. You guys aren’t terrible but you are not competition good. Believe me…not even close. You have mentioned Photon and Matters’ team before and say they are the best which is true…but only because they are probably the only competition ready team that even plays this game. There aren’t enough good players playing so you boasting about beating 10 year old kids in pub rooms is laughable. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Most people that play the game are kids who bought a $20 game and have never played a game like Brink. Most competition level players on console are playing Halo, Gears and yes…even COD. If 25% of those players moved over to Brink you would lost more than you would win. Believe that.
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#96
[QUOTE=thesuzukimethod;375136]
10char10[/QUOTE]Ha ha ha! Uncle Vick is on his tangent again! His rocking chair’s getting cold. Somebody tell him.
wolfnemesis75
(wolfnemesis75)
#99
[QUOTE=thesuzukimethod;375131]Yeah this is unfortunate. We arrange lots of stopwatch style matches with grab-bag teams (amongst the folks that play regularly), so the team dynamics are relatively stable - but that takes pre-planning. even with that though, the games are open to anyone who is on friends lists, so you do have the +/- 1-2 that jump in and out as the matches proceed.
We (the folks who play this) really like playing stopwatch, b/c it (obviously) completely mitigates the offense/defense advantage(s).[/QUOTE]Same here.
ScumBag
(ScumBag)
#100
Sorry I don’t have time to read through all the posts, but this quote is making my liver spin:
[QUOTE=H0RSE;374838]I think when wolf is referring to “high learning curve,” he is not referring to the learning curve related to personal skill. I think he is more referring to the learning curve when compared to other popular FPS games.
Example - a player that plays nothing but Team Deathmatch and CTF, wants to try Brink. Now regardless of how well the player’s individual skills are, coming over from “lowest common denominator” gamemodes, to the class-based objective modes that Brink offers, is going to involve some getting used to.
Remember, this post is supposed to be targeted to new players - a hardened Splash Damage vet, or even a player remotely familiar with class-based team objective games, already has an edge.[/QUOTE]
This exact same thing was said about ET:QW over and over and over. The player base shrank because the learning curve was too high. People are basically idiots who need to be spoon fed objectives and be given a pat on the back for doing the right thing. SD listened to this feedback and we got Brink - a dumbed down ET:QW.
If we keep watering this thing down to entice more players, pretty soon we’re going to have a Farmville clone. Which is probably a good idea for SD since their main objective is to make money and remain solvent as a studio. I am paraphrasing, but if you can’t be bothered to read the Rahdo’s words post, I can’t help you.
I had over 1300 hours on QW and I set Brink down at 64 hours. Is this because Brink is too complicated for me and I can’t figure out how to have fun? Should I have to be TOLD how to have fun in the first place?
The game isn’t fun. It’s dumbed down, consolized, clunky and nobody cares about parkour. It’s a step back for SD from a complexity standpoint and bums me out to no end.