Brink--coordinated flanking vs coordinated camping?

(Lequis) #1

Seeing as I have played neither of the ET games, I would not know whether or not Brink will most likely be based on keep-your-gun-in-their-general-direction fast-paced action or slow-moving aim-based action. Personally, I hope it is the prior. This at first seems to be the likely outcome based on the innovation of the smart system, but then again camping has the following advantages:

Heavy body type, which has far more health and a significant increase in firepower
The engineer, which has landmines (like claymores in MW) and a sentry/turret (like in TF2)
More pips, a closeby ammo/class-changing station (most likely), and by extension the ability to spam.
A position where multiple players are closer together and therefore do not have to check their backs as often.

the advantages of the first and last are fairly good, but the one that worries me the most is the engineer because of the implications.

If the turret is the same as TF2, it will have 360 degrees of motion, the ability to fire straight up and the ability to deal out a large amount of damage without missing. My main complaint about turrets in TF2 is their ability to aim without having a cursor lagging behind the target or missing because the enemy is strafing, crouching, jumping, etc.

If turrets don’t miss, then the only class that will be able to easily destroy sentries is the operative (unless they spam nades, which requires a nearby ammo source).

Assuming no one is running around with a potential disguise for an operative, there is no way to effectively do that.

On the other hand the light body type has this going for it:

movement speed
flanking via the smart system (multiple points/angles of attack)
probable access to high grounds/better spots
getting to the objective before the enemy or spending less time walking between respawns
the element of surprise (should the opponent assume their backs are safe)

One problem is that body type is a customization that cannot be done in game, and if there are only three routes (some of which may be choke-points (or as I call them death funnels)), the enemy can camp them all down, giving the enemy team next to no chances of winning.

Should a clan choose a only heavy approach it could win out while defending every time (which I think is cheap being a rusher and not a camper).

Basically, assuming no game can truly be balanced, one side will win out. You would assume it would come down to:

On offense:
Light/Normal Soldiers with a few medics and operatives with an engineer for buffs, and

For defense:
Heavy Engineers with a few medics and a soldier for ammo

Do you think it can be balanced? If you don’t, which body type do you think will win out?

(brbrbr) #2

so you guess, turning Brink to TF2 was help gamers/gameplay ? in short.
i don’t think so.
i think old-fashioned, proven and gamers-valued ETQW approach was Better !!

p.s.
its should be cool to add also [aside “start flanking >, stupid AI”] commands like “start play better”[and AI obey. surprisingly], “sing a song”, “save my ass”, “dance lambada” and etc.

(Lequis) #3

What exactly is the “ETQW approach?”

I thought it was fast-paced hardcore, but the addition of iron sight gives slow moving players a significant advantage at a price that was originally next to nothing (considering their move speed is probably already easy to trace). Also slow moving players don’t have to be worried about snipers picking them off from the distance, so the iron sight on top of the lack of sniping creates an even worse balancing issue than before.

On the other hand the light player has the advantage of erratic movement, but his aim is only comparable close range (because if you watch the circle gets really big when you are moving at max speed).

TF2 could overcome this obstacle because it had neither iron sights nor running, this game has both.

In general iron sights help slow players more because they lower the speed of the player by a factor rather than a set amount. A percent of infinity is a lot, a percent of zero is nothing.

(Nail) #4

why not play some W:ET or Quake Wars and see how they game

(darthmob) #5

You didn’t play ET / ETQW and you seem to have no idea how hard it is to track an enemy player. :slight_smile: There are no hitzones in TF2 (except for the sniper rifle which doesn’t really count) and you don’t need them in CoD as it is only spray and pray.

If I remember correctly the average headshot accuracy in ET was up to 10%. That’s a lot of missed shots considering that it’s just aiming for the head with next to no spread. If Brink will be somewhat like ET and ETQW you will have fast paced action and you will be required to aim at the same time.

And usually you don’t win a game by pure camping. It may work on an overcrowded public server but if the teams are somewhat balanced and the player count is right it should be no issue.

(tokamak) #6

I hope it’s neither.

(light_sh4v0r) #7

yes, how about fast paced aim based?

(tokamak) #8

How about deciscion-based?

(INF3RN0) #9

How about FPS… you can buy the board game LIFE separately, or l2p :).

(Lequis) #10

[QUOTE=darthmob;214010]

If I remember correctly the average headshot accuracy in ET was up to 10%. That’s a lot of missed shots considering that it’s just aiming for the head with next to no spread. [/QUOTE]

Do headshots do significantly more damage? because that would explain why aim seems to be a big part of this game. In MW headshots are 1.5X with all weapons (minus shotguns which are 1.0X).

I heard hardcore players wanted 8 body shot kill and 3 headshot kill, which would imply headshots do upwards of 2.5X damage regardless of what weapon you are using.

Personally I would prefer that because when I played CoD4, I always aimed for the face, the only problem is when I don’t iron sight (ie 60% of my sniper use), I aim for the body (simply because there is more target to hit and a head through body shot would kill), so it would take some getting used to.

For me this whole system would be a lot easier since I am better at reflex aiming fast targets simply because they are easier to see, as opposed to slow-tedious aim on a non-moving target.

Personally I compete/wreck against other players in 4-6X speed Halo (or whatever the max multiplier was) on sandpit with infinite ammo snipers, but in a hard scope sniper dual I will always lose.

(darthmob) #11

[QUOTE=Lequis;214077]Do headshots do significantly more damage? because that would explain why aim seems to be a big part of this game. In MW headshots are 1.5X with all weapons (minus shotguns which are 1.0X).

I heard hardcore players wanted 8 body shot kill and 3 headshot kill, which would imply headshots do upwards of 2.5X damage regardless of what weapon you are using.[/QUOTE]I don’t know the exact values but they do significantly more damage. In my experience if you didn’t aim for the head you didn’t stand a chance against someone who did.
I guess Brink will rely a bit more on twitch skills with the new movement system. Low m_pitch players won’t like that at all. :smiley:

(kamikazee) #12

[QUOTE=Lequis;214077]Do headshots do significantly more damage? because that would explain why aim seems to be a big part of this game. In MW headshots are 1.5X with all weapons (minus shotguns which are 1.0X).

I heard hardcore players wanted 8 body shot kill and 3 headshot kill, which would imply headshots do upwards of 2.5X damage regardless of what weapon you are using.

Personally I would prefer that because when I played CoD4, I always aimed for the face, the only problem is when I don’t iron sight (ie 60% of my sniper use), I aim for the body (simply because there is more target to hit and a head through body shot would kill), so it would take some getting used to.

For me this whole system would be a lot easier since I am better at reflex aiming fast targets simply because they are easier to see, as opposed to slow-tedious aim on a non-moving target.

Personally I compete/wreck against other players in 4-6X speed Halo (or whatever the max multiplier was) on sandpit with infinite ammo snipers, but in a hard scope sniper dual I will always lose.[/QUOTE]IIRC it took 4 SMG headshots in W:ET to take down a player under “normal” circumstances or 1 sniper (scoped) headshot.

Note that W:ET had the nice feature where having a medic on your team increases all the team’s damage bar with 5-25 HP. Because there was nearly always a medic on your team, add 1 HS for each type just to be sure.

If you want actual facts or more details, I could dig up the game’s damage tables from its source code.

(Cankor) #13

[QUOTE=Lequis;214077]Do headshots do significantly more damage? because that would explain why aim seems to be a big part of this game. In MW headshots are 1.5X with all weapons (minus shotguns which are 1.0X).

I heard hardcore players wanted 8 body shot kill and 3 headshot kill, which would imply headshots do upwards of 2.5X damage regardless of what weapon you are using.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. In ETQW I am pretty sure it is like this

Body x1
Legs x.5
neck x1.5
head x2.5

The original values for an AR at close range in ETQW (Lacerator does more damage but fires slower with roughly the same amount of damage/second resulting) were as follows (so far as I know these are the same now, I know they tweaked accuracy and I think rate of fire but don’t remember them tweaking the damage?):

Body 15
Legs 7
neck 22
head 37

…so that’s 7 body shots or 3 head shots for a 100 health player (In ETQW health varies by class and for GDF as well how by many medics are on your team).

Damage drops off the further away you are. Doesn’t matter where you hit with shotgun or knives and I believe explosive weapons as well.

That system seems to work very well as it strongly rewards aim.

(Lequis) #14

The damage tables are actually really cool, I’ve always hated being one-shot in cod 4, or MW2 from a M16 burst to the legs. I wish instead of ironsighting, they made left trigger (or right mouse) just slow your aim sensitivity, then you wouldn’t have the movement slow and screen crowding from actually doing so.

At first I thought the decreased recoil was significant, but as long as you’re not running, the circle cross hair in the gameplay vid’s is pretty small, so that’s good.

In a sense, adding scoping gives every player two styles of fighting for both long/short range (so the player can choose what’s best for each situation) and for the hardcore aiming players it adds more aim skill to the game if a player doesn’t like to evade bullets. Hopefully players can run and gun, not that they would use it outside of suppressing fire for rushes and to get out of hopeless situations.

Btw, are arm shots .5 like the legs, or are they 1.0 like the body?

Also I liked how Fallout 3 did the whole damage system (with the cripple effects) not that I think they could add it without people wondering why they can’t run or why their turn sensitivity is so low.

Not to mention the fact that most character’s in Fallout 3 took a few minutes to die at the beginning (because gun skill somehow determined base damage, regardless of where you hit them) and the fact that by the end you could take almost a hundred bullets, or survive some explosives.

I found the vats system to be ironic in that game, because with a sniper it could hit the head 95% of the time point blank, yet after about 10 meters it’s chances were down to about 5%.

(aimology) #15

[QUOTE=Lequis;213998]Seeing as I have played neither of the ET games, I would not know whether or not Brink will most likely be based on keep-your-gun-in-their-general-direction fast-paced action or slow-moving aim-based action. Personally, I hope it is the prior. This at first seems to be the likely outcome based on the innovation of the smart system, but then again camping has the following advantages:

Heavy body type, which has far more health and a significant increase in firepower
The engineer, which has landmines (like claymores in MW) and a sentry/turret (like in TF2)
More pips, a closeby ammo/class-changing station (most likely), and by extension the ability to spam.
A position where multiple players are closer together and therefore do not have to check their backs as often.

the advantages of the first and last are fairly good, but the one that worries me the most is the engineer because of the implications.
[B]
If the turret is the same as TF2, it will have 360 degrees of motion, the ability to fire straight up and the ability to deal out a large amount of damage without missing. My main complaint about turrets in TF2 is their ability to aim without having a cursor lagging behind the target or missing because the enemy is strafing, crouching, jumping, etc.

If turrets don’t miss, then the only class that will be able to easily destroy sentries is the operative (unless they spam nades, which requires a nearby ammo source).[/B]

Assuming no one is running around with a potential disguise for an operative, there is no way to effectively do that.

On the other hand the light body type has this going for it:

movement speed
flanking via the smart system (multiple points/angles of attack)
probable access to high grounds/better spots
getting to the objective before the enemy or spending less time walking between respawns
the element of surprise (should the opponent assume their backs are safe)

One problem is that body type is a customization that cannot be done in game, and if there are only three routes (some of which may be choke-points (or as I call them death funnels)), the enemy can camp them all down, giving the enemy team next to no chances of winning.

Should a clan choose a only heavy approach it could win out while defending every time (which I think is cheap being a rusher and not a camper).

Basically, assuming no game can truly be balanced, one side will win out. You would assume it would come down to:

On offense:
Light/Normal Soldiers with a few medics and operatives with an engineer for buffs, and

For defense:
Heavy Engineers with a few medics and a soldier for ammo

Do you think it can be balanced? If you don’t, which body type do you think will win out?[/QUOTE]

No offense, but you’re talking like someone who isnt very talented in gaming. Turrets in tf2 are easy to destroy. I can have a medic on me as a soldier or demo and easily take out turrents all day long. I suppose if you are just a regular player who pubs frequently, this might not happen, but at the same time thats no excuse for acting like turrents are that big of a deal and hard to take out, cause they arent. Maybe if it was some type of 64 man public server with idiots having them at every angle, then ok… other then that no they arent.

I played tf2 in cevo-p so I have some experience in that game and can tell you that the pace of tf2 was slower then the pace of et or rtcw, this game might not be that fast… who knows just because we saw some idiot running in a video doesnt necessarily means its fast. cod4 had videos of them running around and it was still a slow paced game with the run key… I hope this game is pretty fast, but it does look like it does 1 important thing. It implements the use of heavy teamwork, which is great… terrible for public servers but great for competition. public server will suck cause you have to rely on bad players to do their job, which can get very frustrating. anyways Im rambling, but ya turrets are nothing so who cares.

(Lequis) #16

Yeah, I think I was looking into the classes too much, still I’ve never really liked non-“gun-skill” classes, and I’ve always hated camping as a strategy.

You have to remember though, they do have landmines and heavy guns on top of everything else, plus no invincibility can be achieved by medics.

Initially I thought that the body-type that did the gameplay videos was a light hacked to be able to wield a grenade launcher, primarily because of the jump he does after planting the bomb, which I thought only a normal/light body type would be able to do that sort of jump.

Are they legit making the speed of the game significantly faster than that? I’m asking because before people were saying they slowed it down for promotional purposes. High speed is no problem for me, it’s the fact that it might be confined to small areas, which might become a problem on consuls with lag.

My analogy in MW2 if anyone has played it:

Care packages are fairly fast with lightweight: there’s no real control issue. The problem arises when you add lag into the equation because xbox players do not always have good connections.

If they made this game fast paced enough on consul, it would lag balls and turn into what Gears of War 2 was (host wins).

CoD 4 (as far as hardcore goes) has to have one of the fastest paced MLG’s though for SnD (search and destroy), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOgZHpoPQbU

This guy does the most amazing things…

(Apples) #17

Anything is kill-able if you know how to counter it in a balanced game, if the balance is screwed, well yup we’ll have the right to yell out our frustration! Till then, I’ll wait but I think SD are anyway the bests to take care of balance issues… On the other hand the consolish stuffs… well, lets not go there again!

peace

(signofzeta) #18

If this game were similar to ETQW, then camping shouldn’t be an issue. Yes people could camp, but only for a few seconds before they have to change positions, because everywhere in the map, they are vulnerable, unless you are talking about the mountaintops, then in that case, they are still screwed because they can’t see anything, even with the scope zoomed all the way in, or that they are being useless to the team because they aren’t near the objective to provide backup.

And sniping alone isn’t what I call backup, since you can’t really kill an entire army, just one guy at a time.

I think in RTCW, ET, ETQW, and Wolfenstein, there are maps that are designed with flanking in mind, hence the front door and the side door thing.

As for Brink, they say there is going to be sub objectives that allow you to create additional routes, so in a way, you can use those routes to flank your opponent, or you could also just huddle together as a team, and go in one way, or you can send one operative to sneak through the other way, while your entire team sets up a diversion. Those kinds of things are prevalent in ETQW, well in pub servers when there are 12 people per team anyway.

(darthmob) #19

[QUOTE=Lequis;214326]Initially I thought that the body-type that did the gameplay videos was a light hacked to be able to wield a grenade launcher, primarily because of the jump he does after planting the bomb, which I thought only a normal/light body type would be able to do that sort of jump.[/QUOTE]It was like that. See this post from Rahdo.

(PSG_Mud) #20

One thing you have to realize about these forums is most of us here have probably been in competitive gaming before. The whole Quake/ET gaming community is above average so don’t take any of the comments offensive. The common tactics seen in most pub games are not necessarily used by good players. If you watch any TF2 matches its pretty rare to see an engineer for example. They’re fun in pubs, but the right players can nullify them completely.

Also, camping is not really effective in objective based games. Due to the fact that rooms/areas will be flooded with the enemy if they want to be there. You’re also hurting your team if you try to be a solo hero. In short, TF2 forces teamwork through classes, CoD has no teamwork, SD games requires teamwork.