Brink Barrier To Entry Retention Fix/Idea

(Ruben0s) #121

•Defense is a man short compared to offense.

So when you play stopwatch, one person is always on the same side? Or one person has to go spec when you are defending. If I would be a new player I wouldn’t get this.

(GreasedScotsman) #122

Idiom: nail in coffin - (a) nail in the coffin of something also (a) nail in something’s coffin
an action that will cause something to end

Idiom: hit the nail (right) on the head

  1. Lit. to strike a nail precisely on the head with a hammer. If you expect to drive a nail straight, you have to hit the nail on the head.
  2. Fig. to do exactly the right thing; to do something in the most effective and efficient way

To your post:

Brink is not viable on the PC. As a multiplayer title, I cannot find full, active servers with real players.

Brink does not have a steep learning curve. It isn’t “barrier to entry” that’s the problem, it’s the other end… “player retention” that is lacking. The title of the thread is:

“Brink Barrier to Entry Retention Fix/Idea”

Your suggestions may or may not help the barrier to entry, but you haven’t said anything about how to keep players playing other than to crap all over anyone who asks you to respond on that topic that you, yourself, raised.

I am impressed with your Orwellian double-think process, though (look it up).

(Humate) #123

[QUOTE=Ruben0s;375306]•Defense is a man short compared to offense.

So when you play stopwatch, one person is always on the same side? Or one person has to go spec when you are defending. If I would be a new player I wouldn’t get this.[/QUOTE]

I think he means a man short in combat, because someone is doing the objective.
At least thats the only logical explanation I can come up with.

The counter to that is to clear the area/ eliminate the threats before planting/repairing.
The objective player is part of the combat team.

(wolfnemesis75) #124

[QUOTE=GreasedScotsman;375307]
“Brink Barrier to Entry Retention Fix/Idea”
Your suggestions may or may not help the barrier to entry, but you haven’t said anything about how to keep players playing other than to crap all over anyone who asks you to respond on that topic that you, yourself, raised[/QUOTE]I didn’t crap all over anyone. Well, Vick maybe. Just having a little fun with him since he craps all over me. At least my suggestions may or may not help. You admitted as much. Who knows? That’s what the intent here was. And I am doing it in a positive way, right? What do you want me to do here exactly? I notice a lot of new players on Xbox. The matches are full now, and were less-so before the DLC. I can’t do anything either way or about PC. I still like the game. I still play the game. And have not given up on it. Those Stopwatch Handicaps were just examples. And would not make them competitively balanced for ESL, right? But that’s not the goal of the thread. It is more a tangent. Not what they should or should not do. Even with perfect weapons, the defense has the advantage. If the game did a 180, it’d be what you’d want. Right? I am trying to work with the cards I’ve been dealt. I flip back and forth between what can be done with the game currently, what I’d want, and what is possible within its current design. Or even if its worth doing and why. But the game is still fun.

The Brink Haters & Haters are the ones who come in and say: This Absolutely Terrible, This Sucks! Your Idea is Horrible. I want my Money Back! I am ripped off. Worst Game Ever. Worst game of the year. F-THIS! You Console players suck. You Console players don’t know anything. You weren’t here before, so shut up! Etc. Nobody wants to hear that stuff? Are you gonna tell me that stuff is constructive? And not hating?

(GreasedScotsman) #125

You don’t seem to understand that I love about 85% of what Brink offers and have put literally thousands of hours into previous SD & id titles. My concerns exist and I raise my voice because I find it ominous to have a SD multiplayer title installed on my machine that I literally cannot play 3 months after release. That does not bode well, and I want to make sure whatever comes from SD the next time around is something gamers will want to be playing for years, not months.

Because having honor rules of not leaving a hack location, can’t remove a hack box, tweaking spawn timers, disallowing operative abilities, can’t drop more than one turret, etc. Those are great ideas too?

Those were ESL rules that I originally disliked because they took too much away from the vanilla Brink experience. However, through hours of gameplay testing, I came to understand that those rules were necessary to even give a chance for teams to overcome Brink’s gameplay shortcomings (spread, defensive bias, choke-point map design, etc.). These were rules designed by the PC community for a specific need. I would have certainly preferred Brink be balanced and solid out of the box.

You currently hold a few contradictory thoughts:

Brink gameplay is fine.
Brink needs a barrier to entry fix.

Brink has tons of players (on the console, at least).
Brink needs a player retention fix.

Everyone who has an issue with Brink must be a troll.
Brink is not perfect and therefore I shall post a Barrier to Entry Retention Fix/Idea thread.

(That last pairing is more of a joke than anything… I just find irony fascinating.)

(wolfnemesis75) #126

[QUOTE=Humate;375314]I think he means a man short in combat, because someone is doing the objective.
At least thats the only logical explanation I can come up with.

The counter to that is to clear the area/ eliminate the threats before planting/repairing.
The objective player is part of the combat team.[/QUOTE]Yes. Man short. If one man is planting HE, you’re a man-short. Yes, you can clear out the room, if everyone is there to clear out. Zone defense principle. Two men covering an area on defense can negate the strength/skill of one man. Now multiply that by the number of players on defense. For example. On top of that you’re a man short to plant the Charge on offense. Anyone else no what the hell I am talking about? Ever play a sport?

(DarkangelUK) #127

In what sport do you plant HE charges, is that the new extreme sport in Afghanistan?

You’re only a man down if you’re actually doing the objective. Everyone, EVERYONE knows you should be clearing out area before committing to doing the objective, else it’s just a suicide run and you hope they don’t get to you before the objective is complete. Do you think the games should be 8v7 then? I’m guessing you’re leaving it up to the players to consciously run with those numbers, cos there’s no way in hell that limitation will be implemented officially.

(wolfnemesis75) #128

[QUOTE=GreasedScotsman;375316]You don’t seem to understand that I love about 85% of what Brink offers and have put literally thousands of hours into previous SD & id titles. My concerns exist and I raise my voice because I find it ominous to have a SD multiplayer title installed on my machine that I literally cannot play 3 months after release. That does not bode well, and I want to make sure whatever comes from SD the next time around is something gamers will want to be playing for years, not months.
Those were ESL rules that I originally disliked because they took too much away from the vanilla Brink experience. However, through hours of gameplay testing, I came to understand that those rules were necessary to even give a chance for teams to overcome Brink’s gameplay shortcomings (spread, defensive bias, choke-point map design, etc.). These were rules designed by the PC community for a specific need. I would have certainly preferred Brink be balanced and solid out of the box.
You currently hold a few contradictory thoughts:
Brink gameplay is fine.
Brink needs a barrier to entry fix.
Brink has tons of players (on the console, at least).
Brink needs a player retention fix.
Everyone who has an issue with Brink must be a troll.
Brink is not perfect and therefore I shall post a Barrier to Entry Retention Fix/Idea thread.
(That last pairing is more of a joke than anything… I just find irony fascinating.)[/QUOTE]Irony, is that you’re trolling me right now. Nobody is a saint or perfect, here. Take what you will from the thread. If you see it only as indicative of a negative certainty, that’s without any hope, then that’s what it is, but it could also be looked at from a positive perspective. I have always felt that the heart of the matter is that Objective Based Gameplay regardless of whether or not every single aspect is perfectly balanced, is gonna act as a barrier to entry for most average gamers who mainly just want to get in, not think too much about where they’re suppose to be, and shoot stuff with a running total of it. That’s what this thread talks about too. Make suggestions or don’t. Trolls hate all people and games and any happy thoughts.

(Humate) #129

When I say clear the area, I mean kill everyone.
Only then do you proceed to plant or build the crane.

As I said, thats the counter to it.
And thats how you play stopwatch, with accurate weaponry :slight_smile:

(wolfnemesis75) #130

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;375323]In what sport do you plant HE charges, is that the new extreme sport in Afghanistan?

You’re only a man down if you’re actually doing the objective. Everyone, EVERYONE knows you should be clearing out area before committing to doing the objective, else it’s just a suicide run and you hope they don’t get to you before the objective is complete. Do you think the games should be 8v7 then? I’m guessing you’re leaving it up to the players to consciously run with those numbers, cos there’s no way in hell that limitation will be implemented officially.[/QUOTE]Hi. How are you today? Zone Defense principle: Cover an area rather than a man. This can be applied to Brink. Defense doesn’t have to do anything but react as the most basic principle. Take cover and wait until the attacking team tries to do the objective: and becomes a man short; this man is not only completely vulnerable to attack, but must be defended. Because he is confined to a specific place on the battlefield, there’s a smaller area to cover by the defense. Defense can also take cover to further gain the foothold of their main advantage; the strength of their position. This is the case for all war. And the reason so many die when attacking. Just as in a sport like Soccer, Football, Hockey, etc. it is easier to defend than attack. Two men can negate the strength of one man in skill by covering an area rather the man himself. Without the element of surprise or a disguised attack or diversion, a defense will nearly always have the advantage.

(Humate) #131

Take cover and wait until the attacking team tries to do the objective: and becomes a man short; this man is not only completely vulnerable to attack, but must be defended.

The attacking team doesnt go for the objective first, and neither does the objective player.
The whole point is to flush out the enemy first, take area control and then get your objective player to plant.
The description you have given however - is a tactic that is known as “lemming”. Which is an objective player which just rushes the objective in hope hes quick enough to get a successful charge. We’re not talking about that here :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #132

Scotsman kind of nailed it though. You’re proposing fixes for issues that you pretend that do not exist.

(DarkangelUK) #133

Holy **** dude get over yourself, if you can’t take a counter point then stop creating threads that encourage them. Deal with an apposing POV or GTFO, you’re little whiney bitching is just getting annoying now, and this little pissant view of calling everyone a troll that goes against you is getting VERY boring. Deal with it or piss off, if you can’t handle it, then don’t make threads and just go cheerleader everyone else that can actually engage in a discussion and doesn’t cry like a baby because everyone doesn’t whole heartedly agree.

(jRAD) #134

This thread seems to be going in circles, so I’m going to ruin everyone’s fun and close it.