Capture the flag!

(SockDog) #41

All powah to upset Tok! Turn rim lighting to 110%!

(Bakercompany) #42

CTF seems like such a natural fit for Brink, and i’d love to see some easily repeatable game modes that don’t grow stale.

This is what a lot of people who avidly defended the “objective style” gameplay. Well, capturing a flag is an objective…turn it into Brink style.

But the current missions grow stale way too fast, almost everyone agrees. Stopwatch is very cool but still limited on replayability.

Something like a CTF would fit well into Brink and provide lots of repeatable fun.

(tokamak) #43

People avidly defend the objective style because it places two teams in direct conflict over ONE objective. CTF doesn’t do that.

(.Chris.) #44

[QUOTE=Kendle;309642]I think Brink has some elements that would suit CTF.

Having played a lot of Urban Terror, which is played CTF in competition and was doing “parkour” long before SD ever dreamt of it, I can see Brink suiting the game mode perfectly.

Lights for flag running, Heavies for defense, 5-v-5 wouldn’t be a problem (UrT is played 5-v-5, 2 on defense, 2 flag runners and a mid-fielder to cover both).

The SMART movement system is supposed to be a big selling point of Brink but currently there’s nothing to really showcase it. CTF would be perfect as it’d give players a reason to work out how to get from one side of a map to the other as quickly as possible, both in terms of which route to take and the particular skills needed to traverse that route using the Light body type and the SMART system.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don’t understand why some poeple here seem to think objective play is the holy grail of team based gamemodes to which nothing can compare, CTF when done right is just as good. Tried finding one of your past posts that summed it all up very nicely but couldn’t find it.

SMART would be the perfect addition to CTF for reasons you mentioned but also imagine the map layout possibilities you can now implement that you couldn’t before. Cant remember exactly the movement in UrT but was more basic than Brink’s?

Your point being?

(tokamak) #45

That it’s not comparable to objective mode.

(.Chris.) #46

But it is. One team defends, one team attacks. However the team that defends also attacks and the team that attacks also defends. They are defending and attacking a single objective, the flags.

The only difference besides the duality is that it’s always a flag that is the objective.

(SockDog) #47

You sound like a guy telling his girlfriend she’s the most beautiful and only women he’d ever be interested in.

And when it comes to games, we could at least try to quit the fervent bull**** and just look to enjoy ourselves in gaming hedonism. :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #48

Both teams defend and attack, that leads to a lame compromise. The entire idea is that both teams don’t need to divide their resources. Taking that part out of the game allows both teams to go all-in in their sole purpose which leads to a much more intense gameplay.

(Bakercompany) #49

[QUOTE=SockDog;310001]You sound like a guy telling his girlfriend she’s the most beautiful and only women he’d ever be interested in.

And when it comes to games, we could at least try to quit the fervent bull**** and just look to enjoy ourselves in gaming hedonism. :)[/QUOTE]

Ha agreed.

We understand the objective thing trust us. This is why I personally am sticking with Brink as its finally a nice change to COD.

But again, the current mode and maps get very old very fast. They are poorly designed with horrible bottlenecks and a lack of SMART routes.

First off, I want different maps. Second, and I don’t have to have TDM/CTF or whatever, but I want different game modes (like CTF and KOTH) that you can repeat within a few different maps over and over and they won’t grow stale.

Your one objective we’re all forced to fight over gets BORING. I’m sorry. Besides, dividing people up over 2 objectives isn’t bad, we’re dealing with 8v8 anyway. I feel like something similar to CTF would make heavy use of operatives as well, some of which who feel neglected.

But try to expand your thinking a bit, think outside the box. Almost every Quake and Doom game had a CTF mode that was absolutely a blast. One of my favorites was on PS2 and we played CTF forever and ever.

So don’t just defend the one bland game mode because you think its the right thing to do. If other game modes are implemented, you certainly don’t have to play them. But many other people would gain a lot of enjoyment.

(Bakercompany) #50

Or a huge clusterf**k of a bottleneck thats extremely frustrating because you have 16 people trying to cram through a 5 foot space at the same time…

We’re not suggesting replace the current objective maps and matches. Just give us something different as well…

(Shinta) #51

But again, the current mode and maps get very old very fast.

The current model is more dynamic the CTF so I have no idea why you think the game mode would fix the situation

They are poorly designed with horrible bottlenecks and a lack of SMART routes.

This is a problem with the current map pool not objective based game design. A better solution would to simply make better objective based maps rather then CTF

I want different game modes (like CTF and KOTH) that you can repeat within a few different maps over and over and they won’t grow stale.

Why would it be any less stale? Personaly I have no idea how the objective based play can already become stale to anyone. The average game hasn’t even explored slow pushing yet everything is a rush for the objectives. If you haven’t experimented with the various tactics to secure and attack a position how is stale to you?

(SockDog) #52

His issue is you’re trying to steal mummy and daddy away from him. He’s the jealous first child, in-game name: “me Me ME”. :slight_smile:

(Bakercompany) #53

[QUOTE=Shinta;310021]The current model is more dynamic the CTF so I have no idea why you think the game mode would fix the situation

This is a problem with the current map pool not objective based game design. A better solution would to simply make better objective based maps rather then CTF

Why would it be any less stale? Personaly I have no idea how the objective based play can already become stale to anyone. The average game hasn’t even explored slow pushing yet everything is a rush for the objectives. If you haven’t experimented with the various tactics to secure and attack a position how is stale to you?[/QUOTE]

Well put sir.

A different game mode or two isn’t the only/best solution. Definitely different maps though. These maps which most people I believe agree, feel very rushed in design. Little use of SMART, and tons of bottlenecks. Which isn’t terrible, if you have other options.

I love the objective based gameplay I really do. I do think the community could reach a compromise with some different game modes mixed with Brink style Objectives.

Its not so much a cry for those modes, but modes that are easily repeatable on just a few maps and the devs don’t’ have to worry about constantly churning out new maps with different objectives. Thats why people have always used modes like TDM/CTF/KOTH because of the words infinite replayability.

I think to say nobody will get tired of the current maps is very narrow minded. You should always want more Brink, within reason. =D

EDIT: Forgot to answer your one question. Honestly I don’t know why generic game modes don’t grow stale for some. I played Conquest in Transformers WFC from release day until recently when the community completely died. In Gears TDM is the last mode I play, I love the new CTL and always love KOTH. I can’t single out the reason why these modes are vastly more replayable. Something about how simple and broad they are compared to a very linear objective. And some of the favorite maps right now don’t give all classes specific objectives.

I could picture a CTF map with walls like the Cruise Missle What-if mission. Where engineers can constantly construct them and soldiers can take them down. I love that mission for that reason alone. Repeatable Objectives.

(Happymonster) #54

The problem is people have no clue what it is about since they prolly werent even born yet when the grand times of CTF were around
What can u expect if they havent played quake2 ctf or tribes ctf or even unreal ctf

saying CTF doesnt fit Brink is like saying Brink is not Quake

Ofc theres always people that want every game to be like cs and sadly theres alot of those (both the people and the games like cs)

(Calelith) #55

[QUOTE=SentencedToBurn;306979]NO ****, GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE! REALLY?

that’s what I’m saying bro. CTF so we can do both. BRINK is already getting boring for me. CTF always makes it fun. Have it the way its always set up: 5-10 mins on one side, 5-10 mins on the other side of the map. equality. most caps wins.

Also, you mean “objective”, not “adjective”. And I can’t think of any missions that are REMOTELY close to capture the flag, except “refuel”, and even then, that’s just a small portion of that mission (hydraulic fluid part)[/QUOTE]

Firstly if you are getting bored now then CTF wont help.

Secondly, It could be done with Intel with it needing to be taken from a neutral point to another neutral point, but been brink it would need other objectives to make it interesting.

CTF and more drone escorting drones/ViP gamemodes would be fun

(Shinta) #56

I will admit that repeatable objectives was something that I had expected to be in the game and am sad does not exist. I feel a much more dynamic environment could happen if say we take any objective in the chain and have some way for the defending team to push it back a peg.

An example would be if in hanger the defending team could rebuild the wall that houses the fuel. Or if they could re-hack the terminal in order to re-secure the data. Of course these processes should probably be slower to balance and do not necessarily have to take place in the same area, but that is what I wish the matches played out like.

I kind of hate the execution of it, but the idea of the map where you build up barriers to protect the crane is downright amazing

(SockDog) #57

It seems quite simple that we’re very happy with the scoring system for completing an objective, whereas Brink proper only rewards the completion of a set of objectives.

Neither have their faults, it annoys me to the point of posting when people feel one is the lesser of the other. IMO both can and are great fun. I do feel a little robbed (in a wanting not value sense) that Brink offers just the one version of fun.

(Bakercompany) #58

[QUOTE=Shinta;310046]I will admit that repeatable objectives was something that I had expected to be in the game and am sad does not exist. I feel a much more dynamic environment could happen if say we take any objective in the chain and have some way for the defending team to push it back a peg.

An example would be if in hanger the defending team could rebuild the wall that houses the fuel. Or if they could re-hack the terminal in order to re-secure the data. Of course these processes should probably be slower to balance and do not necessarily have to take place in the same area, but that is what I wish the matches played out like.

I kind of hate the execution of it, but the idea of the map where you build up barriers to protect the crane is downright amazing[/QUOTE]

Thats my line of thinking. It wouldn’t have to be available every single time each map. But like you said, the occasional opportunity for defenders to push the offense back a peg would be great.

This is why I love that cruise missile map. I’d like to see more of it, at the same time taking more advantage of their brilliant SMART system.

(dazman76) #59

Ehm, no? The clue is in the description - flagS :slight_smile: They are two entirely seperate objectives - separated in fact, by an entire map space. They are only “the same” in the fact that they’re both flags, and they have the same function. This doesn’t equate to a single objective being the focus of both teams. It’s quite the opposite. The very first difference it leads to, is the teams being split into groups to handle the fact that there are two objectives. Also, throughout a round (and indeed the entire game), these two objectives never change or move - it’s the same setup for every round, aside from the overall structure of the maps.

I think the main problem there, is a higher potential for “holds” on a given objective. I know that the current system doesn’t 100% avoid holds, but it certainly helps the attacking team to keep pushing forward. Defending is often easier than attacking, and allowing defenders to push too far back can easily ruin a game. Allowing the attackers a little leeway tends to result in a more fluid round, and it’s still not a ticket to unavoidable attacking victory :slight_smile:

(SkAface) #60

i LOVE running around in brink, walljumping, sliding from rooftop to rooftop and all that jazz but ctf needs strafejump, and for that i already have a couple of games that still have healthy communitys. ctf might be a nice idea for the long run but now and for the next couple of months brink needs a healthy community for the objective gameplay first.