BRINK suggestions forum

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=SockDog;204911]
Tok. My issue regarding XP though is that there isn’t a perfect system. Darthmob already gave a situation where even SD’s fine tuning can fail. You can’t just flip flop between, players will play well because they earn XP and players will use their initiative regardless of XP. Unless you remove every freedom in the game the XP model will always fight against innovative play and not prevent abuse.[/QUOTE]

It’s rather easy to criticise things for not being perfect unless you have a better alternative. Reminds me a bit of all these people who say democracy isn’t perfect. DUH, we know, what else do you suggest?

So far I can only see XP as the only way to roughly show who has contributed what in a game. But please if you know something else, do share it.

Rather than invent the nuclear bomb and try to find ways of controlling its use and prevent disaster, it’s easier just not to invent it and nothing can go wrong.

Now that would be a good point if the invention of the nuclear bomb didn’t come with huge leaps in nuclear physics and all the benefits that came with it. Same with xp, a tried and tested system where the benefits outweigh the cons of not being perfect.

[BioSnark]

Now that would be a good point if the invention of the nuclear bomb didn’t come with huge leaps in nuclear physics and all the benefits that came with it. Same with xp, a tried and tested system where the benefits outweigh the cons of not being perfect.

That’s a nice limp corpse to beat up on. The strikes against an xp system are not that it isn’t perfect. That’s ridiculous. I’ll give you a real one.

What the system appears to do is give gameplay advantages to people who farm xp (& I can already tell you what the first custom map will be.) The problem with RPG’s and character progression is that it is an alternative measure of skill to accuracy, movement, map knowledge and the rest of the FPS traditional skill set.

As an FPS and an RPG player, I would like the outcome of a firefight in an FPS game to be the product of each player’s FPS skills and abilities. As such, if Splash Damage makes the advantages of character progression too pronounced, I don’t doubt a lot of their traditional base will be turned off.

It’s rather easy to criticise things for not being perfect unless you have a better alternative.
Okay, how about not giving permanent gameplay advantages for xp.

Reminds me a bit of all these people who say democracy isn’t perfect. DUH, we know, what else do you suggest?

An oversimplification. What nations or other organizations are governed by a direct democracy? Far be it from me to suggest one as the best example but perhaps you can find more practical alternatives all around you if you look.

[tokamak]

Again, please provide an alternative that accurately reveals the player’s contribution without using xp (sure TF2 handed out ‘points’ same thing). You said you gave a real one but then went off on a different tangent.

[BioSnark]

Oh, I could care less if there’s an xp or kudos points system in the game. You simply didn’t read what I posted.

[tokamak]

I fully read what you posted. Could not find an alternative.

There is an xp system and that system rewards players for doing different things. If you don’t want it then why are you even playing ET?

[dezerter69]

Thats my sugestions for the game

It`s transate in google so thats can be hard text for readind. I add polish version. If some polish peaople could translate this better

If you also put a radar that may have some nice features for example, when someone dies on the radar screen let this person is in seconds in red, if someone says let the flashes Voip

character development. Each player should be able to specialize in something
run, jump, long slide
shooting accuracy, the efficiency of the weapon
strength quantity hp

Maybe some specialization in any one class, for example, often plays a medic heals faster or better.

I hope that it will not, so that someone who has a high lvl can kill all with ease. Should expect skill player and not the number of hours in the game

opportunity to test the form-oriented movement and the shooting

kick in the slides
using curtains of the living dead or live players
hanging, holding up one hand and shooting the other

modification of weapons, another sight, laser, larger magazine, slimming weapons etc.
In CS when przechodziłeś for some important point (most doors) sounded a characteristic example of ravens. Cool Tactical Case

console and is an important issue bindy

If the slide is forward Możne a kick to the back teeth to quickly hide when we go around the corner and there were several opponents

If there are achivmenty it najtrudmniejsze eg any medals or decorations that can be pinned to a

Maybe the players could have some interesting gadgets that can be for example przyczpic cameras, motion detectors, mines and remotely fired c4

If someone kills someone in a team that may appear zabitemu list of penalties for example, receive 99% hp figure is illuminated in pink, or die in the next round to start. A killed, and so has the example of killing or -3 - XP.
Were able to TK, but even the innocent should be. And voting is good, but no one killed and for example after 3 Team Kill. But the punishment should be the most dangerous kick

Some brobnie should have several modes stralu example pojedyczny potrujny and series. Some may have to have additional furnishings for example, muffler

POLISH VERSION

Jeśli wprowadzicie radar to niech ma kilka fajnych funkcji np gdy ktoś ginie niech na radarze ta osoba jest na sek na czerwono ,jeśli ktoś mówi przez Voip niech miga

rozwój postaci . Każdy gracz powinien móc się w czymś wyspecjalizować
bieg , wyskok , dłuższy ślizg
strzelanie celność , sprawność z bronią
wytrzymałość ilość hp

Może jakaś specjalizacja w jakieś klasie np ktoś często gra medykiem to szybciej albo lepiej leczy.

Mam nadzieje ,że nie będzie tak ,że ktoś kto ma wysoki lvl może zabić wszystkich z łatwością. Powinien się liczyć skill gracza a nie ilość godzin przy grze

możliwość przetestowania postaci nastawionych na ruch i na strzelanie

kopniecie podczas ślizgów
używanie żywej zasłony z martwych lub żywych graczy
zwisanie , trzymanie się jedną ręką i strzelanie drugą

modyfikacja broni , inny celownik , laser , większy magazynek , odchudzenie broni itp.
W CS gdy przechodziłeś przez jakiś ważny punkt(most drzwi) rozbrzmiewał charakterystyczny głos np kruki. Fajna taktyczna sprawa

konsola i bindy są ważna sprawa

Jeśli jest ślizg do przodu możne jakiś odskok do tyły zęby się szybko ukryć gdy wychodzimy zza rogu a tam kilku przeciwników

Jeżeli będą jakieś achivmenty to za najtrudmniejsze np jakieś odznaczenia lub medale które można przypiąć do postaci

Może gracze mogliby mieć jakiś ciekawe gadgety np kamery które można przyczepnic do ścian , detektory ruchu, miny czy c4 zdalnie odpalane

Jeśli ktoś zabije kogoś w drużynie to zabitemu może pojawiać się lista kar np odebranie 99% hp postać świeci się na różowo ,czy ginie w następnej rundzie na starcie. A zabity i tak ma np -3 zabicia lub - XP.
Zdarza się TK ,ale nawet za niewinność powinna . I głosowanie jest dobre ,ale nie po jednym zabiciu a np po 3 Team Kill. Ale najgroźniejszą karą powinien być kick

Niektóre bronie powinny mieć kilka trybów strzału np pojedynczy potrójny i seria. Niektóre mogły by mieć dodatkowe wyposażeniu np tłumik

[BioSnark]

[quote=tokamak;204940]I fully read what you posted. Could not find an alternative.

There is an xp system and that system rewards players for doing different things. If you don’t want it then why are you even playing ET?[/quote]

As I said with regards to systems of government, you are looking for completely different systems where as I argue that it is a nuance in the system that SD HAS ALREADY DECIDED TO USE that may become a major gameplay flaw if they allow it to become too pronounced.

My suggestion would be that they eliminate that aspect of the system (xp based gameplay advantages) to avoid turning off their hardcore base and anyone who can not dedicate hours to the game to fight on a level playing field. Alternatively, I don’t know how much they looked at specialization, xp unlocked gameplay advantages with associated disadvantages. It is certainly possible that they will strike balance between the benefits of player progression and of an equal playing field. However, it isn’t unreasonable to remain skeptical.

If you don’t want it then why are you even playing ET?

Brink is not ET.

[tokamak]

No Brink is even more pronounced in character progression compared to ET.

I think I see where the confusion lies right now. We were talking about xp distribution and you then came in criticising xp as a whole. Fair enough if you do but these are of course two different things. I guess that even you would agree that when an xp-based reward system is being used the distribution system needs to be incredibly refined would it not?

I don’t buy that the hardcore base will be turned off by this. The hardcore base of ET, whoever those people are, have always been playing with xp, the matches have always been filled with unequality. Some palyers had more hp, some had more accuracy, faster reload times etc etc. It offered more complexity to the battlefield and Brink even tops this by making advanced players look more hard-ass (unless they start dressing up as noobs on purpose ofc).

Did you have a problem with xp in the ET games? Personally I never had a problem arriving on the last map of the service without any xp and see what I can do without any upgrades, it’s a fun challenge. And I believe I said it before but Radho mentioned players levelling up faster after they’ve completed their first character. I don’t think that’s a good idea as veterans starting again will have to beat their way through ‘geared’ players again in order to get to a different specialisation, this keeps the variation in players fresh for a longer amount of time. Also totally new players won’t feel like a fish out of the water as much if there are more low-level players running around besides them.

[BioSnark]

No Brink is even more pronounced in character progression compared to ET.

Hence the relevance of this discussion.

I think I see where the confusion lies right now. We were talking about xp distribution and you then came in criticising xp as a whole. Fair enough if you do but these are of course two different things. I guess that even you would agree that when an xp-based reward system is being used the distribution system needs to be incredibly refined would it not?
Um… The reason xp points are important and subject to abuse is that they provide a gameplay advantage. I saw your discussion of xp as entirely based on the issue of xp based player progression. As such, what you described as a tangent should be the main issue of discussion. There are no global leaderboards as I understand it so what other purpose could xp serve? But perhaps I am wrong, in your view?

I don’t buy that the hardcore base will be turned off by this.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for all of them and certainly not for the comp community. I can only speak of those I associate with and assume that their concerns are representative of something. That may or may not be the case.

Personally I never had a problem arriving on the last map of the service without any xp and see what I can do without any upgrades, it’s a fun challenge.

A campaign takes less than an hour. I question if that challenge would still be fun if it were extended to each time you played the game. In an RPG, you would not fight a much higher leveled player. Now, even in FPS, with Quake Live, the same is true in terms of skill. In Brink, however, it seems like the skill stratification is solidified by permanently buffing the better players.

Re: Quake Live, quite tangentially, I don’t advocate forced match making in FPS games. People self-segregate whenever possible. That is not what I am arguing.

[tokamak]

Um… The reason xp points are important and subject to abuse is that they provide a gameplay advantage. I saw your discussion of xp as entirely based on the issue of xp based player progression. As such, what you described as a tangent should be the main issue of discussion. There are no global leaderboards as I understand it so what other purpose could xp serve? But perhaps I am wrong, in your view?

Yes, I was solely talking about the distribution of xp (read a few posts back and you’ll see it came from Rahdo’s comment on K/D ratios). The discussion was about what ‘virtues’ the game celebrates in a player. And my point was that if xp is being handed out cleverly (again, not rewards) the xp would be a great indicator of performance.

A campaign takes less than an hour. I question if that challenge would still be fun if it were extended to each time you played the game. In an RPG, you would not fight a much higher leveled player. Now, even in FPS, with Quake Live, the same is true in terms of skill. In Brink, however, it seems like the skill stratification is solidified by permanently buffing the better players.

An RPG is far more static than a shooter, you can draw a lot of links with both but actual direct player versus player engagement is one of the worst ways to compare an RPG with a shooter. You don’t aim in RPG’s, you don’t dodge and movement hardly ever matters.

So even if players become ‘quite’ powerful compared to others, there’s always the fundamental basics of requiring tactical and cognitive skills safeguarding a sense of balance. In RPGs it’s possible that you simply do not stand a chance againt a higher level player no matter how, but in shooters there’s ALWAYS a chance.

And besides that, Brink won’t just feature a linear growth in players, the emphasis seems to lie on specialisation not overall power. So a higher level player is likely to be incredibly good at one particular skill set, and well, if that’s the case that means he still has a bunch of weak spots somewhere else.

On top of this, the different body-types and buffs you can receive from the rest of your team also help level the field.

Sure, sure, one hour campaigns have the benefit of letting everyone start from skratch, but after that the power per player diverges extremely fast simply because it’s the better players that grow faster. You might want to ask yourself if handing out more power to players who spent more time is really that bad for a game. A; players who play more help provide a stable player base and B: the positive feedback for the most skilled players is less which helps to partially even out the balance.

All in all, a complex battlefield where players can achieve an advantage over others in all kinds of ways is far more interesting than simple battlefields where the outcomes of fire fights are far more clear-cut.

[murka]

Did you have a problem with xp in the ET games?

No because etpro gave a choice to disable it and most servers did. I remember only playing on such servers and they were quite popular. And et:qw promod did also have this feature, which all hardcore fans loved.

Giving xp for the right thing is a too complex calculation and only humans can come close to judging skills. This calculation would require calculating odds based on hp levels, ammo, range, weapon, number of enemies/allies, angle to enemy, etc. and then you can somewhat put the outcome of the battle into it.

Seeing as Brink is infantry-only, k/d ratio can be trusted more than in et:qw, but sill this is not perfect. What if someone is only playing vs noobs? Now that would again require making a ladder system where you only gain points if someone’s rank is close to you.

But still, i find messing with this system too time-consuming to get any satisfaction out of it.

[BioSnark]

The discussion was about what ‘virtues’ the game celebrates in a player. And my point was that if xp is being handed out cleverly (again, not rewards) the xp would be a great indicator of performance.
The point to having xp (experience points) is to spend them which provides for character progression, an alternate measure of skill from aiming, movement and such. Experience points are not merely score points. Again, points and their distribution and abuse are only important if you make them important and a character progression system forces them to be important. If your original discussion had been over the distribution of score points then I’d have completely ignored it. To quote from Rahdo’s post your referenced, “I’m really sensitive to the dangers of introducing things in the game that people can obsess over, to the point of ruining the game for others, and we’re very careful to identify and avoid them.”
As I’ve been saying, my response is, don’t experience based unlocks do just that? Provide a motivation for obsession and ruin the game for those who don’t?

An RPG is far more static than a shooter, you can draw a lot of links with both but actual direct player versus player engagement is one of the worst ways to compare an RPG with a shooter. You don’t aim in RPG’s, you don’t dodge and movement hardly ever matters.
We are thinking of two different things. I believe you’re thinking only of an isometric hack an slash while I am also thinking the money element of Counter Strike… if it were permanent.

And besides that, Brink won’t just feature a linear growth in players, the emphasis seems to lie on specialisation not overall power. So a higher level player is likely to be incredibly good at one particular skill set, and well, if that’s the case that means he still has a bunch of weak spots somewhere else.
Is that speculation? The only information I’ve heard was from QuakeCon saying there were unlockable weapons, abilities and clothes.

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=murka10;204954]No because etpro gave a choice to disable it and most servers did. I remember only playing on such servers and they were quite popular. And et:qw promod did also have this feature, which all hardcore fans loved.

Giving xp for the right thing is a too complex calculation and only humans can come close to judging skills. This calculation would require calculating odds based on hp levels, ammo, range, weapon, number of enemies/allies, angle to enemy, etc. and then you can somewhat put the outcome of the battle into it.

Seeing as Brink is infantry-only, k/d ratio can be trusted more than in et:qw, but sill this is not perfect. What if someone is only playing vs noobs? Now that would again require making a ladder system where you only gain points if someone’s rank is close to you.

But still, i find messing with this system too time-consuming to get any satisfaction out of it.[/QUOTE]

K/D means squat as in the end it’s about completing/defending the objective, not killing players.

I think our fundamental point of disagreement is that you want to level the battlefield by making it as flat as possible (ruling out as many variables as possible pinpointing cognitive skill as main factor) while I want to see a battlefield as complex as possible (throwing in so many variables as possible pinpointing situational awareness as main factor). Of course, correct me if I’m wrong.

[QUOTE=BioSnark;204959]The point to having xp (experience points) is to spend them which provides for character progression, an alternate measure of skill from aiming, movement and such. Experience points are not merely score points. Again, points and their distribution and abuse are only important if you make them important and a character progression system forces them to be important. If your original discussion had been over the distribution of score points then I’d have completely ignored it. To quote from Rahdo’s post your referenced, “I’m really sensitive to the dangers of introducing things in the game that people can obsess over, to the point of ruining the game for others, and we’re very careful to identify and avoid them.”
As I’ve been saying, my response is, don’t experience based unlocks do just that? Provide a motivation for obsession and ruin the game for those who don’t [/QUOTE]

See that brings us back to the start of our discussion. My point was that if the xp will be distributed in the right way, then there’s no problem with people obsessing over xp because that will mean they will automatically do the right thing anyway. There wouldn’t be a difference between some fanatic giving everything only to win that match and an obsessed xp-whore as they would both have to do exactly the same thing in order to achieve their (different) goals. Win-win.

We are thinking of two different things. I believe you’re thinking only of an isometric hack an slash while I am also thinking the money element of Counter Strike… if it were permanent.

Ah now we’re talking. Good point. That would indeed be the best comp mod setting for leagues. Give every player a certain pool of points to specialise their character with. I really like it.

Of course for pubs I still love persistent character progress more because an unequal amount of xp to spent is yet another thing that upsets the equation.

Is that speculation? The only information I’ve heard was from QuakeCon saying there were unlockable weapons, abilities and clothes.

Nope but I’ll have to dig in Rahdo’s posts to find it.

[murka]

I think our fundamental point of disagreement is that you want to level the battlefield by making it as flat as possible (ruling out as many variables as possible pinpointing cognitive skill as main factor) while I want to see a battlefield as complex as possible (throwing in so many variables as possible pinpointing situational awareness as main factor). Of course, correct me if I’m wrong.

No, i want a complex environment, but mostly controlled by skill-based actions like tactics and aim-skill. The problem is, xp doesn’t know what is a good player and what is not and thus skilled players earn xp slower than farmers. Of course xp wouldn’t matter much if there were only periodic unlocks.

I see no way of uniting casual players and hard-core players in the same game, rather have the game made for casuals with many cvars for the competitive community to make a standard for themselves.

[SockDog]

Tok. You yourself said the system wasn’t perfect.

Say there was a perfect system that always handed out the right amount of xp to whatever you did. Then there wouldn’t be a difference between a player doing something only for the xp, and a player doing it to win the match regardless of how much xp he would get for it. Whatever their motivations, players won’t ever spoil the fun for others this way.

Your example is right under your post.

Having XP counting down may lead to lemming like deliveries where all caution is cast aside and people fail again and again just to score the most XP. But then this may just be me thinking too much into it.

Your answer? Well expect the user to not care about XP in this instance and use their initiative for what’s best for the team. Wow. Talk about wanted your cake and eating it.

And as for giving suggestions. I did.

[quote=SockDog;204493]SUGGESTION (granted perhaps not for Brink):
Why not have a L4D style AI in the background to just hand out abilities based on how the two teams are performing and dump the whole XP system down the toilet? At least that way you’d be able to focus on winning the game rather than whoring for XP to get an upgrade.[/quote]

This would give you the variation of the playing field based on an AI’s interpretation of the entire teams success or failure rather than who can manipulate the XP system the best to gain an advantage. A side effect would be that it would also help balance games where sides are not equally skilled but not so much as to give a massive advantage to the losing team.

BTW what have you suggested to fix the XP system beyond burying your head in the sand.

[shirosae]

The problem is, xp doesn’t know what is a good player and what is not and thus skilled players earn xp slower than farmers.

Even more so than that is the basic functionality of XP gains.

If I give you a fixed XP prize for performing a task, then your XP gain from that task rises linearly as you repeat it over and over. How many tasks benefit your team/the game in general in a directly proportional way as you grind them over and over and over? Not many.

I suppose what you could do is assign XP gain on a log scale, like your normalised XP gain is 0.5+0.25(ln(x)), where x is calibrated so the XP gain comes to a soft cap when you decide the level of repetitions that activity should be getting.

You could make that dynamic. So if you’re an engineer in ETQW, you gain a load of XP for keeping a radar up, slightly less for keeping another one up, but don’t really gain much by doing nothing other than repairing the MCP for the entire map.

That only works if you find some way of balancing that target value for x, and only apply XP gains for behaviour which people playing properly will do. You might end up with something like battlesense, except without being able to artificially manipulate it by spending the map capturing forward spawns. Most players who play their role properly get something like 90% of the maximum potential XP, and players who are grinding get 95%.

Even then, you’re likely to end up giving players a shopping list to do between XP checks, so they get their chores out of the way, and then have fun.

And even if it does work somehow, there’s really no way you can make that appeal to the casual scrubs who only want to see ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: SPAWNCAMPED 6,000,000,000 SWAMP RATS, though.

[tokamak]

That only works if you find some way of balancing that target value for x, and only apply XP gains for behaviour which people playing properly will do

Thank you, that’s was the whole point all the time.

[SockDog]

[quote=shirosae;204979]Even more so than that is the basic functionality of XP gains.

If I give you a fixed XP prize for performing a task, then your XP gain from that task rises linearly as you repeat it over and over. How many tasks benefit your team/the game in general in a directly proportional way as you grind them over and over and over? Not many.[/quote]

But again this is restricting possibly genuine tactics in order to yet again patch up the XP mechanic. Still for something that has XP (such as Brink) it would be interesting to see the effects of diminished returns in situations where there is not a higher priority task available.

I just think the XP system is broken and we’d be better off exploring an alternative than sticking plasters all over it and shrugging our shoulders when it still bleeds out.

[BioSnark]

My point was that if the xp will be distributed in the right way, then there’s no problem with people obsessing over xp because that will mean they will automatically do the right thing anyway.

Indeed, and my point was that the system will always have loopholes that reward players for exploiting them and that it turns off new players.

[tokamak]

Then the goal is to make those loopholes as minor as possible so the players will at least feel like they’re wasting their time if they do it.