Brink Q&A

[3Suns]

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.

Single site having the effect of nullifying the smoke, and encouraging grenade spam are the two best reasons FOR multiple sites I have read yet.

Love me some smoke subterfuge and hate me some random grenade death.

[Nail]

of course we’re all assuming there will be several “plant the charge” opportunities in the game, there may not be. Objectives may be more “hack” orientated than “boom” orientated. It’s already been said there is the ability to hack from varying distances, might be the same for explosives, that would give varying arm spots to a single placement.

[INF3RN0]

[QUOTE=3Suns;213046]

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]

For the record though, I don’t call people noobs based on their skill or ability. Someone who thinks they understand something, but clearly have a skewed view of the situation and attempt to whine about it are noobs. All those things you mentioned fall in the category, and I personally look at these things in a realistic view rather than what would be easiest for me. I only hate them because they can’t play a game without ruining it for everyone else who has patience and enjoys a challenge.

[INF3RN0]

[QUOTE=3Suns;213048]
I agree. The gamer with skill should always be rewarded.[/QUOTE]

Brings my thoughts back to the discussion on how skill is rewarded. I think that skill in one area should be rewarded just as much as any other. You might not get the kills, but you can still complete objectives and win the game. It is the balance in these kinds of games that I love best, and I just wish others would realize that you don’t need to focus on one or the other to have fun. No need to make either less important than the other, but equally important. Makes sense to me.

[H0RSE]

You like the idea of noobifying something because it just makes the game that much simpler.
No, I support this idea because of balancing issues, not simplifying issues. I don’t need a game to be “simple.” I’ve had my clan days, I’ve had my league matches and scrimmage games and tournaments, been there done that. This system seems to set an equal playing field for both teams…THAT is why I support it.

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.
First off, what does “easy to play,” have anything to do with “overhyped?” and I already addressed about making the game easy in the words above. I don’t think I need to worry about Brink being overhyped, since it’s a new IP…MW2 had 6 previous CoD games to build up a fanbase, plus it was a cashcow game. It had a shitload of press and media, and was talked about like it was the next Messiah. Yet when it finally came out, it fell flat. The MP was riddled with game breaking glitches and exploits, plus even the intentional changes they made ruined the game, and the singleplayer was so short, it felt tacked on. It has nothing to do with being ‘easy to play,’ or ‘simplified.’ It has to do with all the praise and coverage this game received, all it really excelled in was sales…the game itself was whatever.

Brink has zero titles prior to this, and SD is really only known in the PC community, so you can’t even really overhype the game based on the company.

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?
You seem to missing the point…

It’s one charge, on one specific object, at specific point on specific missions. It isn’t the basis of the entire game (like going endzone to endzone is in football)…it doesn’t need a lot a room. In fact, giving it a large area to plant makes the game “noobfriendly.” If I had an object that was 50 ft. long, and I could plant anywhere on it…yeah, that’s tough. And even if it was a small object, having the ability to plant anywhere makes it insanely easier. It’s like trying to keep guys out of a box with a door on every side. Now if you only have a door on one side, things get a bit harder.

[3Suns]

First of all, great discussion.

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.

(from INF3RNO) Brings my thoughts back to the discussion on how skill is rewarded. I think that skill in one area should be rewarded just as much as any other. You might not get the kills, but you can still complete objectives and win the game. It is the balance in these kinds of games that I love best, and I just wish others would realize that you don’t need to focus on one or the other to have fun. No need to make either less important than the other, but equally important. Makes sense to me.

I guess “skilled players” may need some defining.

As a gamer with no aiming skillz, I could kiss the feet of the developers of games (TF2, L4D, and Gears of War) that in addition to rewarding sharpshooters and quick reaction time, reward things like a willingness to take one for the team, good communication skills, teammate awareness, and cooperation. I can’t contribute in a deathmatch game. I am a liability there. In the games I listed above, however, I have friends that would rather have me on their team than many other much more “skilled” players because they know that what I can do will ensure the win for them.

As for “reward”, I consider “fun” and “winning” as the only rewards (in that order) that I need. However, if a game is going to dish out extras, and if it isn’t going to give copious amounts of XP for killing alone, then, a simple “Kills = xx” should be enough. Everyone can see. “WOW, you killed 83 enemies! Thanks, so and so!”

If all a gamer wants to do is run around killing everything in sight, and then get allthe glory at the end of the game for the most kills and the best K/D ratio - PLEASE go play MW2 or Halos or almost any other shooter out there. Please leave BRINK to the few of us who want a game that rewards (in addition to those skills) talents other than just twitch aiming.

Ultimately, I think Rahdo made it very clear that Slayers will still get their XP and their glory, they just need to be doing it on Objective, and with others, for maximum effect.

[Exedore]

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.

This hints at one of the bigger reasons; it’s not a purely a decision based on game design, we wanted to raise the production values all around so things have to be treated a little differently.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the vitriol on this subject, it was the subject of some debate when we made the call early on. Accessibility is actually not the main reason, but it is one of the factors.

I will concede that it does limit variation in some respects, but there are so many other divergent elements in the game’s design that ultimately I don’t believe it hinders the gameplay much if at all. Remember that you all are still seeing only part of the overall picture at this stage… we play the game a lot, and it works. As ever, the proof will be in the pudding when the game is on the shelves.

It’s interesting that nobody has mentioned the biggest ‘pro’ of the limited plant locations, and that’s that it requires teamwork. In Brink it’s very difficult to solo primary objectives, and that’s completely intentional.
:stroggtapir::stroggtapir::stroggtapir: > :stroggtapir:

[MILFandCookies]

3suns I was speaking about specific actions in terms of balancing.

Let me give you a few examples from etqw, which im aware you havent played.

In etqw a soldier with a rocket could ‘lock onto’ a vehicle to kill it. It was the easiest way in which someone could get a kill with that weapon; essentially its using an auto tracking rocket. However the downside to this approach is the enemy gets notified of an incoming rocket and simply taps the decoy button to avoid it. Against gun flyers, these rockets were a non issue.

The other method players used was ‘dumb fire’ mode - where there is no locking on, no assistance by the game whatsoever. The player has to AIM and predict how the rocket will curve for a direct hit. The reward or “payoff” for this approach, is the target isnt notified of the incoming rocket and therefore cannot avoid it by using decoys. Players who were great at this, were a massive pain to vehicle whores.

So what Im saying is, the “payoff” for doing a manual action that requires skill, should be far far greater than doing it auto. If someone wants to use SMART - cool thats fine. But at least have it so that climbing manually is waaaaaaay more efficient.

And thats when you have a game that “appeals long-term to both the gamers with and without skillz”

[3Suns]

MILF, thanks for taking the time to provide the ET:QW examples. I completely understand what you are talking about. Actually, when they made the rocket launcher lock on in Halo 2, all the Halo competitive players were broken-hearted because they had mastered the skill of leading their across-the-map shots in H1, and with H2, that was taken away from them. Even though I couldn’t do it well, I agreed with them.

[QUOTE=Exedore;213076]
I will concede that it does limit variation in some respects, but there are so many other divergent elements in the game’s design that ultimately I don’t believe it hinders the gameplay much if at all. Remember that you all are still seeing only part of the overall picture at this stage… we play the game a lot, and it works. As ever, the proof will be in the pudding when the game is on the shelves.[/QUOTE]
I think that I am hugging the left front leg of the elephant. I think MILF has the right front leg and HORSE has the trunk. And someone over there has his hand on the… wait… in the… EEEwww that’s not right! No wonder he is rantin’ about the game!

:stroggtapir::stroggtapir::stroggtapir: >:stroggtapir:

Whoa yeah, baby! You know it! If you build it, we will come. Go the distance. Ease our pain.

[Ragoo]

or they could have made multiple fixed plant positions on some of the objectives, let’s say on either side of the objective for example.

I hoped for that because it at least gives you a choice and some variety so that you can hide while planting and you are not always in the obvious position (makes it easier to plant and harder to camp). In ET:QW it was sometimes very nice thing to run to the defenders site of the objective and doing the unexpected and plant there

I think it is really sad that you can’t do tricks like planting very high so you have to jump to arm/disarm. If you have the time to do it while arming the enemy needs the same time to disarm so it’s a nice tactical addition to gameplay Also very sad that you can’t finish a plant someone else armed 80% or so already and that you can’t arm multiple plants if you have enough time for it (I mean if everyone of the enemy team is dead you deserve do have this advantage).

[AnthonyDa]

Anyone to say to totamak that planting in a special place on the obj is taking more time than a rush plant and is a big quit or double ?

BTW, how is the revive systeme working in BRINK, is there already official words about it ? (for example : Do you have the revive tool in hand when you want too or not ? And so on).

[tokamak]

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.

Do charges tick slower if you plant them further away? Thought not.

Anyone to say to totamak that planting in a special place on the obj is taking more time than a rush plant and is a big quit or double ?

It takes even longer to find that bloody thing. It’s not a skill based stand-off, it’s about luck. It’s not the defenders with the best tactical insight or best fighters, it’s the one with the luckiest disarmer.

[INF3RN0]

[QUOTE=3Suns;213072]First of all, great discussion.

I guess “skilled players” may need some defining.

As a gamer with no aiming skillz, I could kiss the feet of the developers of games (TF2, L4D, and Gears of War) that in addition to rewarding sharpshooters and quick reaction time, reward things like a willingness to take one for the team, good communication skills, teammate awareness, and cooperation. I can’t contribute in a deathmatch game. I am a liability there. In the games I listed above, however, I have friends that would rather have me on their team than many other much more “skilled” players because they know that what I can do will ensure the win for them.

As for “reward”, I consider “fun” and “winning” as the only rewards (in that order) that I need. However, if a game is going to dish out extras, and if it isn’t going to give copious amounts of XP for killing alone, then, a simple “Kills = xx” should be enough. Everyone can see. “WOW, you killed 83 enemies! Thanks, so and so!”

If all a gamer wants to do is run around killing everything in sight, and then get allthe glory at the end of the game for the most kills and the best K/D ratio - PLEASE go play MW2 or Halos or almost any other shooter out there. Please leave BRINK to the few of us who want a game that rewards (in addition to those skills) talents other than just twitch aiming.

Ultimately, I think Rahdo made it very clear that Slayers will still get their XP and their glory, they just need to be doing it on Objective, and with others, for maximum effect.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree with what your saying, and I think that forcing everyone to play towards a common goal besides personal gain is the solution. I can get most kills playing all roles in a game, but I am still performing my role as it is meant to be. You won’t see me getting rewards for taking out deploys at their last base or something of that sort. In the end everything results in a kill (placing a mine, turret, etc). Either I am helping clear the way to an objective or defending it between the obj and their forward spawn (depends on the class). I would say however that a more serious problem is the amount of players who want to get an objective (for awards or something) that poses a bigger threat. Then you have 10 objective classes, people tking each other to get the first plant, etc. I think that overall it is just important to remember that just because someone is getting a lot of kills, does not at all mean they aren’t doing what they are supposed to and there is no reason they shouldn’t be rewarded for it.

[INF3RN0]

[QUOTE=tokamak;213120]Do charges tick slower if you plant them further away? Thought not.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t follow… Do you hack or construct slower on different sides? These objectives aren’t the size of football fields… it’s pretty hard not to find where they put it. I thought the original problem was hidden plants, but now this just seems ridiculous.

[tokamak]

In Brink you can hack from a distance at the cost of slower hacking.

[INF3RN0]

In Brink you can hack from a distance at the cost of slower hacking.

I am pretty sure we were referring to QW in this instance. Also, if you plant a charge I doubt it would take two on the outer edges to do the damage of one in the center (bad idea). Brink hacking is completely different as you only have to be near the objective, rather than right up on it like QW. It does however work in a system that does not limit you to a single location. You are picking different spots in a confined space when planting a charge and have to get right up on it anyways (I doubt you can plant it from a distance, but slooooower), so if you are okay with the hacking system, then what is the problem with multi-planting in different locations…

[tokamak]

Because hiding a whole human body is far harder than a small charge which you can stick everywhere.

[INF3RN0]

Because hiding a whole human body is far harder than a small charge which you can stick everywhere.

If there weren’t places to “hide” it, as in exploits and ridiculous trick plants, but simply options (front, back, left, right) then would you consider it an okay system? Because that is what we are trying to say here…

[tokamak]

I’m only against ‘trick-planting’ ie trying to hide a charge from sight. That was what the original discussion started on.

[INF3RN0]

I’m only against ‘trick-planting’ ie trying to hide a charge from sight. That was what the original discussion started on.

Yes, but what we are trying to say is that aside from trick planting, the multi-plant anywhere system works well. There is absolutely no reason to confine objectives to a single spot and only being allowed to have one person complete them. That is what the discussion turned into, although I am fairly sure the majority likes it the way it was.