Brink Competition Round-up: The Right Rules and More

(wolfnemesis75) #101

We are arguing more that 8v8 is better reflection of the game, not whether or not you could find enough players. Although I do believe that a lower number of players can be more intense (having come from Gears of War) I also think Brink is designed for an even number of players for each class rather than an odd number to begin with. There are four classes. Also, I feel that there should be required classes in a competition. Operative should be a requirement. It makes far more sense that way. 4v4 makes better sense than 5v5. (Another reason why I feel the rules were not thought out well enough)

The rules need to structure it so that the game is being played in a manner that shows the core elements of the game. Otherwise, it is just a handicapped, non-representation of the game itself, thus shows competition having little merit.

(wolfnemesis75) #102

[QUOTE=Shadowcat;339888]I can feel like I am working together with a teammate I don’t know. We buff each other, we cover each other’s backs, we defend the objective together; heck, we might even move together from objective to objective together. This isn’t what I’m talking about when i say “tactical unit”.

When you are playing with a clan you have practiced with, you have a plan for the entire map from start to finish. You discuss multiple plans for each objectives, and at a single word might know exactly what the rest of your team is going to do, even if they are out of sight, and alter your plan of action for it. This level of familiarity and trust cant be achieved with someone you don’t know no matter how well SD designed the systems that nudge people into working together.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are correct in that a practiced team will have a greater chance of success because of roles and such and familiarity of tactics.

(Kendle) #103

I assume that was directed at me?

Answer: I didn’t, but the response from an SD employee that the comp scene needs to be more considerate (whilst true) doesn’t fill me enthusiasm that they’re considerate of the comp scene’s needs, hence the question.

(Kendle) #104

As for the 5-v-5 argument …

Many “eSports” titles are played 5-v-5, CS:S, COD4, even ET these days, so Brink having the same team size makes it more likely to attract teams currently playing other games competitively, and would ensure LAN support is not an issue (a LAN with 10 teams playing one game 5-v-5 and 10 teams playing another 6-v-6 would be more difficult to organise, a LAN with 20 teams playing 5-v-5 is much easier, and the more teams you involve the greater the difference it would make).

(Shadowcat) #105

The point was that the familiarity starts to fall apart with 8 people. 6v6 is often done for those that like larger matches, but 8v8 is difficult to approach as a tactical unit. Im not sure if its that people have trouble keeping track of 16 players in their head, or if people just think its ok to run off on their own with larger teams, or if team chat gets hard to decipher with more people, or what. All i can say is that i have seen it and done it, and it feels more chaotic.

(wolfnemesis75) #106

[QUOTE=Kendle;339891]I assume that was directed at me?

Answer: I didn’t, but the response from an SD employee that the comp scene needs to be more considerate (whilst true) doesn’t fill me enthusiasm that they’re considerate of the comp scene’s needs, hence the question.[/QUOTE]

Probably because too many changes to the rules. I’d do the same if I was them. Comp Scene is basically not playing the game as intended. “We will make our own rules so we can make it what we want it to be” would rub me the wrong way too in all honesty. The game is far more strategic out of the box.

(wolfnemesis75) #107

What you are saying is it is more challenging, 8v8. That’s why I’d rather it played that way. More challenging overall.

(Shadowcat) #108

I would be surprised if SD ditched the comp scene, since thats where the company started. I believe that Locki was even the leader of Earthquakers before he created Splash Damage.

(Kendle) #109

If being rubbed the wrong way is a basis for decision making at SD they’re in the wrong business, gamers are a hostile crowd at the best of times.

Honestly, I think as someone has already mentioned in this thread, if you don’t play the game clanned don’t comment, because the decisions the comp scene make don’t effect you.

(its al bout security) #110

[QUOTE=Kendle;339891]I assume that was directed at me?

Answer: I didn’t, but the response from an SD employee that the comp scene needs to be more considerate (whilst true) doesn’t fill me enthusiasm that they’re considerate of the comp scene’s needs, hence the question.[/QUOTE]

the computer nerds of this generation are rudde look what an ignorant thing he said.

“they dont consider us so we bash them so no one gets interested or buys the game”

really?

your gonna bash the game because its harder to put updates out on computer than consoles and take longer?? WOW lotta brain power went into coming up with that idea

ohh they dont give us they’re undivided devotion so we bash them! really how educated have the computer audience become? they complain and complain and never really just sit down and accept what is going to pretty much be static.

(Shadowcat) #111

Bashing SD would be counter productive anyway. They sold more copies of Brink for Xbox than PC, so if they really did have to choose one or the other for some reason, it would make more sense to favor XBOX.

(DeeTwo) #112

In that case, the danger is that Locki will disband Splash Damage, reform it and then pretend it never happened.

(coleym91) #113

[QUOTE=its al bout security;339904]the computer nerds of this generation are rudde look what an ignorant thing he said.

“they dont consider us so we bash them so no one gets interested or buys the game”

really?

your gonna bash the game because its harder to put updates out on computer than consoles and take longer?? WOW lotta brain power went into coming up with that idea

ohh they dont give us they’re undivided devotion so we bash them! really how educated have the computer audience become? they complain and complain and never really just sit down and accept what is going to pretty much be static.[/QUOTE]

By comp he means competition, not computer. And FYI, computer games can be patched much more than consoles can. Console game patches need to be authorised by Sony/Microsoft before they are published. PC games can be patched whenever they want.

(wolfnemesis75) #114

Console is just plain easier. You don’t have to have dedicated space in your house, you don’t have to break the bank to play, you don’t have to worry about System Requirements (Oh this would put me into a rage in my PC days) there are many more people to play with, and you get more bang for you buck (more games). So, those bashing them for not providing PC stuff and demanding so much doesn’t change the simple fact that there are better business decisions beyond PC.

Back on topic: I wish the COMP rules were a better reflection of Brink.

(zenstar) #115

[QUOTE=Kendle;339903]If being rubbed the wrong way is a basis for decision making at SD they’re in the wrong business, gamers are a hostile crowd at the best of times.

Honestly, I think as someone has already mentioned in this thread, if you don’t play the game clanned don’t comment, because the decisions the comp scene make don’t effect you.[/QUOTE]

If you’re not open to non comp / non clan people commenting on your threads then you really shouldn’t put them up on a forum full of non comp / non clan people.

The forum is here to discuss things. If people want to discuss the comp rules then let them. You don’t have to get involved with the discussion. You cannot dictate who is allowed to talk here though. As long as people stay within forum guidelines they can chat on any topic.

(wolfnemesis75) #116

[QUOTE=zenstar;339934]If you’re not open to non comp / non clan people commenting on your threads then you really shouldn’t put them up on a forum full of non comp / non clan people.

The forum is here to discuss things. If people want to discuss the comp rules then let them. You don’t have to get involved with the discussion. You cannot dictate who is allowed to talk here though. As long as people stay within forum guidelines they can chat on any topic.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there is a noticeable undermining thread of: Only we know best mentality that gets tiresome, that’s for sure. You just can’t argue the simple fact that these Comp rules could be much, much better and more reflective of the actual game.

(Kalbuth) #117

Seeing the amount of details taken into account, any increase in player count is impacting more than you seem to think

If I theorize much, taking an example :
On ETQW, Sewer map, during a comp match, the GDF attackers got with 3 rocket soldiers and 1 Spec Ops (a rather unusual setup for an engineer oriented objective at this point of the map) in an Armadillo vehicle, rushed to a wall protecting the ennemy base, tricked-jumped on top of the wall, the Spec disabled an incoming Cyclop, and both RL soldiers killed it without the cyclop being able to retaliate
They probably had rehearsed it for long, they new exactly what path the Armadillo had to take to be the fastest possible at the wall, without being noticed by other Stroggs, they knew the trickjumps to perform, the Spec knew when to throw its jammer, the soldiers knew the positions from where to shoot without harm from the Cyclop
More to the point, they knew the Cyclop would be alone because it was 6vs6 format, and the Strogg had to counter a possible full engineer rush at first objective (which had already been proven to be efficient) with their 5 other players, and needed the Cyclop reinforcement because the Cyclop was THAT important. Ie : the Cyclop was sure to come, and would come alone, so they could do their tactic.
It was the opening move of one of 4King match, if I’m not mistaken. It worked to perfection.

With all these parameters to take into account, any additional player is going to add a lot of randomness in the possible opposition you’ll encounter. In above case, it could mess up the strat because the Cyclop could be with another Strogg who could kill Soldiers. Could… could… could… the strat is now more about something that “could happen”. It becomes random, you “hope” the Cyclop is going to be alone

If I theorize less :
In a 10vs10 or 8vs8 scenario, match will be a mess, and more about “how to react to random event” than “how to plan properly”
Reacting to more randomness is indeed more challenging in a way, but I’m not sure it’s for the better

(zenstar) #118

[QUOTE=Kalbuth;339950]Seeing the amount of details taken into account, any increase in player count is impacting more than you seem to think…
snip…
Reacting to more randomness is indeed more challenging in a way, but I’m not sure it’s for the better[/QUOTE]

It is possible that things will work out this way. But it’s also possible that 2 x 4man teams will train the same way the team in your example did, and then train to coordinate with the other team allowing more variation in tactics without an increase in randomness.

I think you have a better argument with “Other games already play 5v5 and it’s easier to entice them over / integrate Brink with other games” than arguing that it’ll cause a breakdown in tactics.

I’d still like to see it tried out properly at 8v8 before the dicision is final but /shrug. I don’t really lose anything from the deal personally.

(Humate) #119

I find it amusing that a game that barely has any player numbers one month after release, is compared to a game like SC2 as a reason to justify - “play the game the way it was designed or your comps will lack player numbers”

It might be a good idea to create a game that actually attracts high player numbers first. Then we can discuss whether rulesets attract or repulse players. Seems very cart-before-the-horse imo.

massive cough

As for sc2, one of my favourite games which I’m absolutely terrible at. Says it all really :slight_smile:

(Kendle) #120

[QUOTE=zenstar;339934]If you’re not open to non comp / non clan people commenting on your threads then you really shouldn’t put them up on a forum full of non comp / non clan people.

The forum is here to discuss things. If people want to discuss the comp rules then let them. You don’t have to get involved with the discussion. You cannot dictate who is allowed to talk here though. As long as people stay within forum guidelines they can chat on any topic.[/QUOTE]

Although in general I agree, this thread is linked to a blog post by GreasedScotsman, it wasn’t put here for “discussion of comp rules by non-comp players”, and in particular it doesn’t move the discussion forward when so many people who would not be effected by it insist on commenting on it.

There are some people in this thread who have written walls of text on something that doesn’t concern them. They may have the right, but what was the point?