Curious about one aspect

[obliviondoll]

Are you sure about that? I figured at level 20 when you respec you can put your points whereever you want, including all rank 5 abilities (but this is theoretically not desirable because they mentioned the really good stuff you get earlier on).

When you respec you lose one level though, so you can only take up to level 19 (Rank 4) abilities. Then one Rank 5 ability when you reach 20 again.

[Herandar]

Are you sure about that? I figured at level 20 when you respec you can put your points whereever you want, including all rank 5 abilities (but this is theoretically not desirable because they mentioned the really good stuff you get earlier on).

Agreed. There has been no confirmation on any limitations on selecting rank 5 abilites. Please look at the “EDGE Online Looks at Balancing Brink” thread. This was discussed only a few days ago.

[CapnHowdy21]

The post before this explains why that isn’t necessary really. You will have to drop a level to 19 to respec, therefore you can no longer pick rank 5 abilities. So when you get back to 20, you can only choose 1 rank 5 ability.

[Mr_Magikarp]

You could just level up, not spending any points on the way there, then put all your points in rank 5 abilities.

[Whydmer]

So the container city map comes up as the next map and you are going to be on offense (Security). Even at this point we know that Soldiers will be needed and Engineers will be needed, Medics and Ops are nice to have. So lets say you want to play your tricked out medic (assuming of course that your other pubber-mates would know that they need to play Engi’s and Soldiers), in building this medic you took all the medic abilities, which used up 9 of your ability slots. you had 11 left. 4 of those are Rank 1 universal abilities, and the other 7 were Engineer and operative abilities. You took no soldier abilities for this class. Should you be criticized for choosing a character with no Soldier abilities on a map that needs to have things blown up? who knows.

To continue with this hypothetical situation we’ll assume (whatever the probability of it happening -leave that to the geniuses above) that no other pubber took a character resembling a competent soldier with all of the soldier’s helpful skills. No one has a character who can blow up the first gate, and after a few minutes it is obvious no one is changing classes to soldier either. What do you do? You know you are an awesome medic, and this is what you want to be. You have a few skills to help as an Engi. (you can lay down a level 2 turret and buff guns) and you have a few ops abilities too. But other than being able to blow stuff up you can’t do squat as a soldier, well you can also continue to shoot stuff with your same gun, oh and you can pass out some basic ammo, but you know other than those things you should basically be sitting around knitting a sweater for all the good you can do as a soldier. Oh wait you can blow stuff up, including the gate, and that is all you need to do as a soldier and then you’ll get a bunch of XP for it.

So if you change class to your crappy-bass soldier, you can run from the command post to the gate and blow it up or die trying. On the way you can buff your teammates ammo. That is all that is needed and expected of you. If you die trying one of the other medics there can revive you or you respawn while the 7 engineer/operatives stand around uselessly, and you try again. Until you succeed. Then you go back to being uber-rambo-medic.

I understand the desire to only play uber-characters I have a couple real life friends who feel that way, it has ruined gaming for one of them. As much as I get it. I prefer a game that has the challenge of sometimes facing situations that I am unprepared for. I prefer needing to make a decision that will have consequences later for good or for ill, because then my decision meant something. If I want to make meaningless decisions I’ll stick to my role as a husband.

[obliviondoll]

You could just level up, not spending any points on the way there, then put all your points in rank 5 abilities.

Assuming the game allows you to save your ability points after leveling up.

It may not.

[Whydmer]

Agreed. There has been no confirmation on any limitations on selecting rank 5 abilites. Please look at the “EDGE Online Looks at Balancing Brink” thread. This was discussed only a few days ago.

I remember an interview, I think it was with Rahdo where he mentioned that choices would be hard at level 20 because you could only have one Rank 5 ability, I’ll try to find the interview.

[RAAAAAAAAAAGE]

[QUOTE=obliviondoll;281500]Assuming the game allows you to save your ability points after leveling up.

It may not.[/QUOTE]

That would be a bit annoying no?

[CapnHowdy21]

Most games that have level restrictions on abilities are smart enough not to allow you to save up your points and buy a ton of high level abilities. I would think splash damage is smarter then that. If thats all you have to do is respec at level 20, why even have the level requirements anymore?

[BioSnark]

As I may have mentioned in a different thread with the same discussion, it’s possible that level 20 abilities require 19 points allocated in lower level abilities and similar applied to the lower tiers of abilities. The character’s abilities levels could also determine what level they are with respect to the match making system so a respec’d level 20 could play at level 1 with 1 point allocated.

just a thought.

[RAAAAAAAAAAGE]

@ Captain Howdy.
But for brink the more powerful abilities are unlocked at lower levels. So the high rank abilities add more diversity than sheer power. Which i would understand not being able to save up points in that case.

In any case the game is gonna be released as it is. And It doesnt bother me if you can or cannot save your ability points.

[Shadowcat]

[QUOTE=Bridger;281310]The problem is that playing Optimally means missing out on swaths of content. You shouldn’t have to play sub-optimally in order to experience all the content in the game. in theory, specializing in medic should be no more powerful/weak an option as specializing in soldier or playing a generalized character. Yet if being flexibility is important, then specializing is automatically weaker than generalizing.

Since I expect most of my play will be in Pubs, this is what I’m concerned about. I don’t like a game design decision that requires me to play sub-optimally in order to experience all the content.
[/QUOTE]

Define “optimally”

Because putting all your eggs in one basket doesn’t seem like the “optimal” choice for a pub.

The strength from multi-classing comes from the fact that you can better suit your class to the strengths, weaknesses, and needs of your team. Forcing yourself into one class, even if you are very good at that class, may become a weakness when you end up on a team with 3 other people who are focused on that class, just by chance.

Even ignoring random teams, being a medic for the first objective for a game, then an engi for the second half may be the optimal choice for a certain map.

Or maybe have soldier as a secondary class in case the enemy starts camping and you need some extra explosives. The points put into soldier may take away from your main class, but give you the ability to change classes and deal with a wider range of situations.

[QUOTE=obliviondoll;281456]
You didn’t account for the fact that this figure applies across the spectrum, not individually for each class.

(Oh, and for reference, I haven’t studied statistics in the past 11 years, but when I was 17, I passed my final exam for the year with just under 70% - I went into the exam without a calculator)[/QUOTE]

The chance of being a medic is .25, the chance of not being a medic is .75
The chance of 8 people on a team not being medic is .75^8
The chance of no one on an 8 man team being medic is 10%
That math will be the same for all classes.

now i need to find the overlap

Chance of being soldier or operative: .50
Chance of 8 people not being medic or engi: .50^8 = ~.4%
Number of 2 class combinations: 6
6 x .4% = 2.4%
No need to account for 3 class overlap, its around .001%

so now i just add the chance of each class not being on the team, and subtract the times when the figures overlap.

40% - 2.6% = 37.6% or ~3/8

You’re right, its not a perfect way for doing it, but it should ballpark fairly well.

Also, assuming this is the same chance for secondary classes, you cant just subtract one from the other, they are independant. It would be like trying to figure out the chance of rolling snake eyes by subtracting 1/6 from 1/6. You have to multiply them.

And if we are talking statistics class scores, then i got a 4.0 without ever studying.

[Linsolv]

Okay. Let’s do this the way that my calc class would do it—by writing stuff down instead of making wild guesses, which is what I generally do because I don’t really know stats at all.

For two-classes (a 7/7/8 layout is entirely reasonable)
1 player — 1/1 chance of missing 2 classes. 1/1 chance of missing 3 classes.
2 players — 6/36 chance of missing 2 classes. 24/36 chance of missing 1 class.
3 players — 6/216 chance of missing 2 classes. 96/216 chance of missing 1 class.

Now, it’s not perfect, but since I don’t want to have to draw out 216 cases, I’m going to try to extrapolate a formula, which I can do from these numbers.

f(x) = 6 / (6^x) for 2 classes,
g(x) = 6*(4^[x-1]) / (6^x) for 1 class.

With those numbers, the chance of missing 2 classes with 8 characters is

6/1,679,616, and the chance of missing 1 class is 98,304/1,679,616

Therefor, the chance of having every spot filled is 1,581,306/1,679,616 or 94.14%

(Sorry if this is weird in context. I wrote the first half of this, I wrote 2 hours ago. Then I went to lunch and did most of the math by just drawing it out on paper and literally counting for the first 3 cases.)

[Shadowcat]

[QUOTE=Linsolv;281541]Okay. Let’s do this the way that my calc class would do it—by writing stuff down instead of making wild guesses, which is what I generally do because I don’t really know stats at all.

For two-classes (a 7/7/8 layout is entirely reasonable)
1 player — 1/1 chance of missing 2 classes. 1/1 chance of missing 3 classes.
2 players — 6/36 chance of missing 2 classes. 24/36 chance of missing 1 class.
3 players — 6/216 chance of missing 2 classes. 96/216 chance of missing 1 class.

Now, it’s not perfect, but since I don’t want to have to draw out 216 cases, I’m going to try to extrapolate a formula, which I can do from these numbers.

f(x) = 6 / (6^x) for 2 classes,
g(x) = 6*(4^[x-1]) / (6^x) for 1 class.

With those numbers, the chance of missing 2 classes with 8 characters is

6/1,679,616, and the chance of missing 1 class is 98,304/1,679,616

Therefor, the chance of having every spot filled is 1,581,306/1,679,616 or 94.14%

(Sorry if this is weird in context. I wrote the first half of this, I wrote 2 hours ago. Then I went to lunch and did most of the math by just drawing it out on paper and literally counting for the first 3 cases.)[/QUOTE]

Well, an easy check is that the chance of missing a specific class is easy to calculate (.75^8= ~10%). The chance of missing ANY class would have to be bigger.

[Linsolv]

But you missed the part where I assumed that each player has two primary classes.

.5^8 = .004

EDIT: I’m using my programming skills to get together a little program to calculate this stuff. Shouldn’t be more than 20-30 min at this point until I can get some numbers together.

[RAAAAAAAAAAGE]

Ha i don’t even feel privelaged enough to be on this forum with all you stats geniuses. When i did basic stats in first year of Uni i thought “wonder if it would be good to know this stuff for general conversation”. You guys have given me an answer

[Shadowcat]

[QUOTE=Linsolv;281550]But you missed the part where I assumed that each player has two primary classes.

.5^8 = .004

EDIT: I’m using my programming skills to get together a little program to calculate this stuff. Shouldn’t be more than 20-30 min at this point until I can get some numbers together.[/QUOTE]

Oh, you’re right, I did miss that.

I dont really care anymore, to be honest. Im going to arbitrarily decide that its somewhere around 10-20%

Even at 1 in 5 games, it doesn’t seem that bad that one person would have to play outside of their comfort zone.

[SockDog]

Aren’t we missing the point here. Technically it damn well should work because SD wouldn’t release it otherwise (so you can stop crunching numbers). What they may have missed however is the sheer idiocy of the playerbase to play along in exactly that way.

This is my point, emphasis is placed on abilities as being important and a core part of the game but then players are expected to not worry about losing them if the map or player configuration requires them too. I just don’t see a segment of players agreeing with that and they’ll imbalance maps as a result.

[Linsolv]

I think you missed my point. You’re whining because you won’t be absolutely perfect in SIX PERCENT of cases?! I’m. calling. you. retarded. for. that.

[obliviondoll]

so now i just add the chance of each class not being on the team[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Shadowcat;281548]Well, an easy check is that the chance of missing a specific class is easy to calculate (.75^8= ~10%). The chance of missing ANY class would have to be bigger.

And THIS is, as I said, where you’re going wrong, because you’re not running a proper sanity check when you’re adding the figures.

That 0.75^8 = 10% is the probability of having ONE class missing, and all the others present. While NO players will be dual-spec.

Assuming 25% of players ARE dual-spec, you then have an average of 2 out of your 8 players counting as 2 separate classes.

If you use the overly-simplistic method of going to 0.75^10 (6 players x 1 class + 2 players x 2 classes = 10), then you end up with under 6%

Which matches up nicely with Linsolv’s working.

If you work it a step further, though, and account for the dual-class options properly, you’ll use 0.75^6 x 0.5^2

Which results in 4.45% - an even lower figure. Funny how that works.

Multiplying that by 4 gets a far more reasonable 17.8%

I’ve got a LOT more confidence in that figure than your previous >30% on a sanity check. if the numbers don’t seem to make sense, they probably DON’T. Go back to the drawing board, try again.

But that number still seems a little too high to me. We’re forgetting to factor in the players who will say “Oh we have no [INSERT CLASS HERE]s. I’ll cover that, even though I’m not set up for it” - and THOSE players will be specifically working to reduce the probability of a class going unused, so the probability of one of those players being in a game will have to be directly subtracted from the 17.8% - if we assume 10% of players have this attitude, then we end up with…

16%

I’ll run with that figure if you will.

Wow, I just re-taught myself a bunch of Stats lessons that I half-remembered from over 10 years ago. Cool. Thanks, guys!