BRINK suggestions forum

[tokamak]

I missed the part below brackets. Disappointing.

[ThunderWank]

Don’t know if this has been mentioned or implemented but the ability to upgrade your turrets would be a god send.
Both asthetically and performance wise.
Allowing it to serve as cover for a loss of damage or swapping out the standard gun for a limited amount of rockets.
There’s so many places you could go with it and I would love to see such a feature implemented.
In my opinion the more customization options you have the better the game will be, gameplay will be more diverse and it’ll just make me want to play it longer and buy your inevitable DLC

[tokamak]

Yeah it would be cool if you could ‘tune’ a turret as if you would a radio, with range and rate of fire in the balance.

[Nail]

Stream of consciousness posting only has it’s benefits at certain times. Cohesive understanding is usually best.

[ThunderWank]

Haha Sniper Turrets…that would be epic.
Sounds like a fairly easy thing to implement too.

[system]

Tuning weapons during matches doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, in the end this should be shooter and tuning your weapon here, change your class there,… would slow it down too much and take the flow out of the game.

The upgrading and developing is fine to me as it has been described.

[ThunderWank]

That’s why it would be done before the match…

[Mustang]

One of the server options will definitely be friendly fire (which will be off in a standard match).

I’ll have to disagree with this, I think FF should be on for standard match, just like RTCW, W:ET and ET:QW

I also prefer for FF=On in standard match play

I will never use a nade in BRINK (especially since you can shoot them in mid-air)

Source?

Regarding TK-Revive, I kind of like it, but probably because I’m very used to it
It should probably be an easy fix though
Sorting out HP from packs vs HP from revives

Maybe even having scalable HP from packs
So if you are on 20% hp a pack give 40%
But if you are on 50% a pack only gives 20%

I think I could enjoy Brink without TK-Revive if it is more beneficial not to do it
And I’m talking about before any TK penalties are introduced into the equation

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=Mustang;203132]I also prefer for FF=On in standard match play

Source?[/QUOTE]

Aye I’m also for FF as standard. Having to be careful about other team-mates is another dimension you would take away.

And he’s referring to the Brink video where nades are shot in mid air.

[Dormamu]

One of the server options will definitely be friendly fire (which will be off in a standard match)

maybe is referring to the trailers released about Brink, i thought i saw some team bleeding there… Although if i was that player bleaded by Locki i would said: “Thank You Sir…may i have another one…”

[SockDog]

It wouldn’t be circular if you actually separated team killing from grieving. They’re two different issues.

I’m using Team Killing as an single example of the griefer’s toolkit. If you want to just focus on team killing as part of normal play fair enough but stop replying to my posts regarding griefing like the two are connected then complain that they are separate issues.

If someone gets more enjoyment from griefing than they do playing any repercussions linked to playing are very likely to be ill-effective at deterring the behaviour.

[SockDog]

That is why I think the system I suggested has the potential to work way better than a system that depends on the opinion of 15 random players about a complete stranger because this will most often end in 'I don’t know if he is a tker but I will just click yes because there must be a reason for the vote/I think it’s funny to kick him so I click yes/I just don’t care and click yes/…".

Maybe you have both? Maybe the positive votes allow players some more influence on the game and the negative votes less?

I agree getting people to vote for the right reasons and in the right way is one of the toughest parts to figure out in my head. Maybe it’s subtle and suggested? Perhaps if a player performs well the game suggests you consider them MVP? Perhaps if a player causes team damage, gets kicked for griefing etc the game suggests you consider them LVP?

On a slight tangent, if Rahdo is still reading my drivel.

Please include kick vote reasons in the menu system so you know why you’re voting someone to be kicked. It might also enable you to select “Kick Vote: Griefing” and then have the game pull up some context to back up the claim Team Damage/Kills.

[zXSwordXz]

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;203043]Seriously dude, you don’t need to reply to every single comment that’s posted.
[/QUOTE]
hahahhahaha…This is so true…I was thinking of it the other day.

[zXSwordXz]

Sword’s idea of the victim being the one who can kick the dick is interesting, but wouldn’t that just lead to assholes spreading their bile thinly around the team?

That is True. I hope we can come up with a fair solution.

[Ragoo]

Maybe you have both? Maybe the positive votes allow players some more influence on the game and the negative votes less?

Yeah I thought about that, too. But as I said, the positive votes should be far more important because negative ones will always be abused. Having both sounds reasonable though

edit: And I think I like this:

Perhaps if a player performs well the game suggests you consider them MVP? Perhaps if a player causes team damage, gets kicked for griefing etc the game suggests you consider them LVP?

Players who perform well in the game are often also the ones who would like the unfair players to stay away

[BioSnark]

A kick vote should entail a ~five minute ban from the server by default (as can be done in etqw). Otherwise it is worthless as a tool to remove idiots.

The first rule of games it to WIN. This is a rule no other rule can be in contradiction with.

Really? Amazingly enough, even in etqw, some of the better players switch teams to try to balance them out. How dare they break The First Rule lol. That’s your rule, murka. Unless I’m competing for something, my first rule of gaming is having fun.

[Nail]

mind you, the better players got that way by winning, once you get over the thrill of winning on a consistent basis, switching for balance elevates the fun, but the idea is to win the game. After all, winning is fun. No one I know plays to lose.

[SockDog]

Good point. Even if you switch teams you’re still trying to win, you’re just doing it at perhaps a harder difficulty level.

[tokamak]

The entire reputation is just plain bullshit. People vote for all kinds of reasons next to whether that player is a griever or not. They might not like the nickname, be jealous on his performance, maybe one of his friends don’t like the player, etc etc.

You’re only adding an extra tool to the griever’s kit.

hahahhahaha…This is so true…I was thinking of it the other day.

If you have a problem with it you can PM me.

[Ragoo]

[QUOTE=tokamak;203207]The entire reputation is just plain bullshit. People vote for all kinds of reasons next to whether that player is a griever or not. They might not like the nickname, be jealous on his performance, maybe one of his friends don’t like the player, etc etc.

You’re only adding an extra tool to the griever’s kit.
[/QUOTE]

Did you even bother reading my posts? I already said that in the internet positive reputation is far more trustworthy than negative because people tend to abuse a systems where you can harm or annoy others.
That is why you may put negative voting in but make it not as important as positive one and you give the players with positive reputation more power.

The best thing you can do is to establish a system that encourages regulation from within the community. But if you give the players a simple vote kick, that is anarchy. If you give them the opportunity to vote for their vigilante (I don’t even know if that is the right word to use her, sorry for my English) - that is democracy!

(and I don’t know what you call the way IW went with CoD:MW2… maybe a communist system that has kind of a state-directed economy )