Brink Q&A
Ignoring glitch plants which should be patched anyway this is pretty much what ETQW had.
Having a choice where to plant and how many plants you make is enriching to the diversity of the game. It seems however than some people see diversity as unnecessary confusion. And I think that is the crux of the argument here.
A game can be diverse without confusion if the game communicates information to the player properly. For example, instead of limiting plants to one location so that you don’t need to look for it, why not use the HUD to highlight it, make it more visible. Then this whole “it’s unfair” argument falls away.
I still like the idea of reducing the bomb plant damage the further away from the ideal plant location/s you are.
I am curious what you guys think about being able to hack an objective from any angle? How about constructing it from any angle. Should only one person be allowed to complete such an objective and should they have to stand on a big X mark? Thought not.
[QUOTE=H0RSE;212950]
Noobfriendly implies that a game has been so over-simplified, that a veteran or hardcore gamer could gain no satisfaction from playing it.
Gamerfriendly means that a game appeals to a much wider audience, from skill levels ranging 1-100. It may feature ‘simplified’ or streamlined features to cater to those on the lower end of the skill spectrum, but it is still completely playable for Hardcore and Veterans alike.
Just because a new player can jump into a game and learn the ropes quickly, doesn’t mean it’s “noobfriendly,” it just means that it’s designed really well.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. YES!
Sacrificing game mechanics in the name of design is noobing (for want of a better word) the game because you are removing something to make the game easier to understand or play with no perceivable benefit to gameplay.
Gamerfriendly is having an interface that can explain a complicated issue in a concise manner.
Again. If the issue is people not being able to find the bomb then make the bomb even more visible don’t just lock it in one place so that you no longer need to worry about where it is or how best to approach it.
Sacrificing game mechanics in the name of design is noobing (for want of a better word) the game because you are removing something to make the game easier to understand or play with no perceivable benefit to gameplay.
It’s not “sacrificing” anything…it’s just optimizing it. The fundamental gameplay still remains intact - plant the charge and defend/disarm it. You can argue about choice or diversity or how you go about doing this (multiple charges, plant anywhere, trickplanting) but all of that is just optional “clutter”. If you remove all of those things, it doesn’t change the core component…destroy the objective and defend the objective. This actually causes the player to focus MORE on the objective:
Destroy this object here
Plant the charge here
defend here
When you hear, “the charge has been planted!” You know exactly where to go and exactly where to go to disarm. You know where they are going to be defending, and exactly where you need to focus the attack. It has the game playing out more like a movie action scene, rather than unrehearsed improv.
I kinda look at it like traditional CTF. When you play CTF, you know exactly where the opponents flag is, and you know exactly where to take it. It’s not like you get to their flag room and say, “Where’s their flag at? I know it’s here somewhere…” or you get there and say, “They have 5 flags here! Now what do I do?” Everything is streamlined. Take this flag to this location - plant this bomb here and defend this location.
The game is only 8v8, and it looks to play much faster than ET or QW. Faster gameplay + having less players + respawn timers = not feasible to have chaotic multiple plants anywhere.
And there is also this post:
http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showpost.php?p=204542&postcount=574
[QUOTE=SockDog;213019]Sacrificing game mechanics in the name of design is noobing (for want of a better word) the game because you are removing something to make the game easier to understand or play with no perceivable benefit to gameplay.
Gamerfriendly is having an interface that can explain a complicated issue in a concise manner.
Again. If the issue is people not being able to find the bomb then make the bomb even more visible don’t just lock it in one place so that you no longer need to worry about where it is or how best to approach it.[/QUOTE]
I agree. What I find funny is how so many issues relating to game mechanics are quickly clumped together when the actual problem is completely separate from the system. I hate to be frank, but many of today’s gamers do not want to just accept that for the most part they will never be the best and want as little room to improve or compete as possible, as an integrated part of the game mechanics. Easy is the word of the day, but even the least complex situations suddenly become an issue when others are more capable. You can only simplify something so much before it ruins the genre. Gamer friendly should not mean that there is little to no room for improvement or creativity. Exploits are a realistic issue (trick planting, sniper weapon swap bug, map glitches, etc), but just because you might have more difficulty coping with game mechanics than others only means that you probably have to try harder. Quake 3 movement is difficult to master, CS:S spread takes time to learn, etc, etc. Good games will never be as simple as 123 and that’s a fact. Multi-planting is such a horribly insignificant issue I can hardly understand why it is important to some people.
Semantics.
The fundamental gameplay still remains intact - plant the charge and defend/disarm it. You can argue about choice or diversity or how you go about doing this (multiple charges, plant anywhere, trickplanting) but all of that is just optional “clutter”. If you remove all of those things, it doesn’t change the core component…destroy the objective and defend the objective.
But that “clutter” is what some of us are saying is depth. And to be honest I’ve yet to see one argument for it’s removal that wouldn’t be equally handled by some HUD tweaks.
This actually causes the player to focus MORE on the objective:
Destroy this object here
Plant the charge here
defend here
Oh come on. Where do you draw the line? Lots of stuff can be removed as I semi-joked yesterday, why not remove geometry from the map, it’s just clutter on the way to the objective. Being able to plant anywhere on the objective is no different from giving teams the freedom to attack and defend the objective wherever they choose.
When you hear, “the charge has been planted!” You know exactly where to go and exactly where to go to disarm. You know where they are going to be defending, and exactly where you need to focus the attack. It has the game playing out more like a movie action scene, rather than unrehearsed improv.
So instead of going into a situation, assessing the risks and responding accordingly you’re saying it makes for a better game if you know exactly what is happening even if you have no visibility of it at all? MMmm, seems again we’re putting single player sensibilities (scripted action movie) into a multiplayer game. I thought the strength of multiplayer was the unpredictability of your fellow players. If I want a movie experience I’ll play MW2 single player or put a DVD on.
I kinda look at it like traditional CTF. When you play CTF, you know exactly where the opponents flag is, and you know exactly where to take it. It’s not like you get to their flag room and say, “Where’s their flag at? I know it’s here somewhere…” or you get there and say, “They have 5 flags here! Now what do I do?” Everything is streamlined. Take this flag to this location - plant this bomb here and defend this location.
Not quite like for like there but anyway. If you’re holding the enemies flag you don’t just stand on your flagspot waiting for your flag to be returned. You move and make it harder for the enemy to locate you, it adds more depth and challenge for the other team.
And there is also this post:
http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showpost.php?p=204542&postcount=574
Yup and that, AFAIK, is SDs reasoning for limiting the placement.
[QUOTE=SockDog;213019]Sacrificing game mechanics in the name of design is noobing (for want of a better word) the game because you are removing something to make the game easier to understand or play with no perceivable benefit to gameplay.
Gamerfriendly is having an interface that can explain a complicated issue in a concise manner.
Again. If the issue is people not being able to find the bomb then make the bomb even more visible don’t just lock it in one place so that you no longer need to worry about where it is or how best to approach it.[/QUOTE]
The logic in your last sentence is sound.
However, adding multiple bomb plant locations doesn’t make the game more or less difficult and changing the conditions doesn’t necessarily mean sacrificing game mechanics. It is just different. One doesn’t change the endzone in American football every year just to make it more difficult. Oh, this time, let’s run the football into the left side bleachers. That’ll fool 'em. It is the same every year, every game. It neither makes the game easier, nor does it make it less appealing.
I don’t have any stake in whether or not there are multiple places to plant the bomb or not. But I am concerned about the definition of gamer friendly, noob friendly, and whether or not SD is being thought of as making a game for noobs.
I think the best example of SD’s decision making process and their concern about making their game appeal to the hardcore with 1337 skillz and the Noob alike is the implementation of the SMART system. While even a noob will be able to jump all over the place, the l33t will be able to add manual assistance to make it smoother, faster, and more accurate. This, and the history and experience of SD tells me that they will create a game that appeals long-term to both the gamers with and without skillz.
the end zone is 160 feet wide, not 2, gives you more area to score, and more area to be defended. I’d hate to have my plant fail because I’d missed the x by 6 inches while under fire.
[QUOTE=3Suns;213026]
I don’t have any stake in whether or not there are multiple places to plant the bomb or not. But I am concerned about the definition of gamer friendly, noob friendly, and whether or not SD is being thought of as making a game for noobs. [/QUOTE]
Noobs cry the loudest but are not always the majority, which is why SD ought to stick with what works.
So instead of going into a situation, assessing the risks and responding accordingly you’re saying it makes for a better game if you know exactly what is happening even if you have no visibility of it at all?
You still have to assess the situation, and you don’t know exactly whats going on. All you know is exactly where the charge is, which isn’t a bad thing. You don’t know how many guys are there, what classes or weapons they have, you still have to respond accordingly.
MMmm, seems again we’re putting single player sensibilities (scripted action movie) into a multiplayer game.
Not quite. Scripted events always play out the same, this is a multiplayer game. Although the charge may be in the same location everytime, everything else is “up for grabs,” according to how things will play out.
I thought the strength of multiplayer was the unpredictability of your fellow players.
it’s the “unpredictability” of players that find exploits and glitches and “bend” the rules of games. They are the reason we need things like punkbuster and server admins, and one of the reasons why companies make “noobfriendly” games. By curbing this “unpredictability,” they can set an even playing field, while still maintaining tactics, strategy, and overall fun.
[QUOTE=3Suns;213026]
I think the best example of SD’s decision making process and their concern about making their game appeal to the hardcore with 1337 skillz and the Noob alike is the implementation of the SMART system. While even a noob will be able to jump all over the place, the l33t will be able to add manual assistance to make it smoother, faster, and more accurate. This, and the history and experience of SD tells me that they will create a game that appeals long-term to both the gamers with and without skillz.[/QUOTE]
We have yet to see the difference b/w the two methods of climbing. Im hoping that the difference b/w the two methods is pretty significant, because I feel that skill should ALWAYS be rewarded. No one would bother learning how to do it manually, if it wasnt waaaay more efficient, apart from not wanting the game to play the game for them.
So if a nub chooses to climb using the smart system, chasing after another guy who is climbing manually, the nub shouldnt even be close.
If what you said is true 3suns, then thats how it will play out.
Ah yes, but even with an end zone 160’ wide, teams get their touchdown taken away from them if they miss it by 6" 
Cheers! Personally, I would prefer to have the option to play with multiple bomb sites, but I don’t think that by not being able to, you take away from the depth of the game. Epic games added a ton of sh!t to their Gears of War 2 game, and almost all of it took away from the depth of the gameplay of the original. It is a fascinating study on how to F…k things up. More is not always better or deeper.
Noobs cry the loudest but are not always the majority, which is why SD ought to stick with what works.
INF3RN0, I would say whiners cry the loudest - and the whiner cross-section is filled with noobs, l33ts, PC gamers, and console gamers alike. A whiner is a whiner, and ever will be.
[QUOTE=3Suns;213046]Ah yes, but even with an end zone 160’ wide, teams get their touchdown taken away from them if they miss it by 6"
[/QUOTE]
How is that any different to QW?
If you dont plant on the objective it doesnt register. 
[QUOTE=MILFandCookies;213043]We have yet to see the difference b/w the two methods of climbing. Im hoping that the difference b/w the two methods is pretty significant, because I feel that skill should ALWAYS be rewarded. No one would bother learning how to do it manually, if it wasnt waaaay more efficient, apart from not wanting the game to play the game for them.
So if a nub chooses to climb using the smart system, chasing after another guy who is climbing manually, the nub shouldnt even be close.
If what you said is true 3suns, then thats how it will play out.[/QUOTE]
I think that it may be a matter of degrees. You may be expecting a much greater difference than I am. I will say, however, Rahdo’s explanation immediately clicked with me because I have seen the difference between those who are skilled and those who aren’t moving around the Gears of War maps. Both gamers have access to the same buttons for sliding into and out of cover etc, but those who are experienced and skilled, have the timing down, and can always get to the power weapon considerably faster than those who aren’t and don’t.
I agree. The gamer with skill should always be rewarded.
Let us just forget the whole plant charge thing, because I think it is too late too change it right now. After all, Exedore did say they put so much animation into the planting of the charge, although I think that is wasted animation, but whatever.
[QUOTE=3Suns;213048]I think that it may be a matter of degrees. You may be expecting a much greater difference than I am. I will say, however, Rahdo’s explanation immediately clicked with me because I have seen the difference between those who are skilled and those who aren’t moving around the Gears of War maps. Both gamers have access to the same buttons for sliding into and out of cover etc, but those who are experienced and skilled, have the timing down, and can always get to the power weapon considerably faster than those who aren’t and don’t.
I agree. The gamer with skill should always be rewarded.[/QUOTE]
As long as there are gaming mechanics, that reward skilled players with things other than XP… then yes the game will be tailored to everyone.
Of course this isn’t the all of it but its one less variable to worry about and for what reason? Because you can’t see a big flashing bomb? Single plant point means smoke is pointless, grenade and weapon spam encouraged. You’re “optimising” an issue that doesn’t exist.
Not quite. Scripted events always play out the same, this is a multiplayer game. Although the charge may be in the same location everytime, everything else is “up for grabs,” according to how things will play out.
And that’s what you said you wanted. The same location for the bomb so that it played out the same. Yes of course the players will be different but I assure you 100% your action movie will never have a moment where the engineer runs past the bomb in an adrenaline fueled panic.
it’s the “unpredictability” of players that find exploits and glitches and “bend” the rules of games. They are the reason we need things like punkbuster and server admins, and one of the reasons why companies make “noobfriendly” games. By curbing this “unpredictability,” they can set an even playing field, while still maintaining tactics, strategy, and overall fun.
Oh don’t, please don’t. We’re talking about removing something from the game that isn’t exploiting or cheating. You like the idea of noobifying something because it just makes the game that much simpler. For someone with a signature about MW2 being hyped I’d think you would be the last person to want to genericise the hell out of a game for the sake of making it easy to play.
But you have a large amount of room in that end zone. If it funneled down to a 2 foot score zone do you think the opposing team would spread out across the width of the field or just cover that 2 foot?
Limiting the plant location, granted in a much smaller way, Limits the variations possible on a plant and likewise the defense.
I don’t have any stake in whether or not there are multiple places to plant the bomb or not. But I am concerned about the definition of gamer friendly, noob friendly, and whether or not SD is being thought of as making a game for noobs.
I think the best example of SD’s decision making process and their concern about making their game appeal to the hardcore with 1337 skillz and the Noob alike is the implementation of the SMART system. While even a noob will be able to jump all over the place, the l33t will be able to add manual assistance to make it smoother, faster, and more accurate. This, and the history and experience of SD tells me that they will create a game that appeals long-term to both the gamers with and without skillz.
I have the utmost respect for SD. While I appreciate they’re under pressure to please two different platforms I don’t think they’d do anything that would drastically impact one or the other in a negative way. They’ll make the game work and make it fun.
I’m just stunned that when faced with an issue the response here is “cut it, makes things simpler” rather than do the ingenious thing such as have SMART and also allow manual movement.