DEAR SD FOLKS: plz add CTF/TDM

(SphereCow) #21

[QUOTE=SockDog;304419]Some points.

[ul]
[li]Inclusion of other modes doesn’t mean you have to play them
[/li][li]Other modes do not have to use the entire toolset of Brink (classes, maps, objectives etc)
[/li][li]Other modes do not need to be vanilla copies, they can be Brinkified to make them both unique but familiar
[/li][li]Official modes are more likely to be played that multiple mods or half mods
[/li][li]Challenges are a very big opportunity to fill these expectations while leaving the core game as is. I think the Parkour challenge is a potential opener for a bigger Defrag type mode
[/li][/ul][/QUOTE]

I made a thread on the Steam forums that about covers it.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1887804

(HLC_Stinky) #22

CTF and TDM humm sounds like they want COD style of playing. I don’t think this will happen with the story line of this game it don’t makle any scence. There is alot of room to carry on this stlye of game play…
Just my 2 cents worth…

(Codine) #23

I’m sorry but still no. The game was made for all team play and the classes are balanced for the current game mode.

(tzod462) #24

Um…you know when there’s an objective to get “object X” and take it to “location Y”? Yeah…that IS CTF…

And please god no to TDM. This game is about teamwork and objectives. If you just want TDM, nearly every single other FPS game offers it. Don’t destroy what is unique about SD games.

So, TDM is not needed (I mean let’s face it, if you want TDM, you can just play that way and not use teamwork at all…god knows I’ve seen plenty of people doing this already). CTF is already in the game. It’s just a “data disc” or something, instead of a “flag.”

(Bakercompany) #25

It would be so easy to add the generic game modes into Brinks already excellent game structure. And it would also be easy to make maps and modes that still feature the Brink objective style. CTF is an easy one having Operatives hack open a safe and then an item to carry back.

This is something we should all support. If you don’t want these game modes then don’t play them, but I think everyone deserves them. The missions are great but they do get stale kind of fast. Repeatable game modes add infinite replayability. Its also a great way for players to be able to showcase these characters they’ve built.

Add these game modes and stat tracking along with lobbies and lag fixing, and this game is perfect in my opinion.

(Dregs) #26

Why would you waste your money on a different, objective-based game, when all you want to do is bash your head against the TDM wall? Seriously? Can you not play the 1,000 other FPS games that offer your preference of game style? Or do you seriously have to demand that this game be turned into a clone? I just don’t get it.

(SockDog) #27

[quote=Luddens Desir;304447]I made a thread on the Steam forums that about covers it.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1887804[/quote]

I think it covers the ability to pick an inaccurate extreme, ignore some obvious given facts and then say Brink is really good why would you play anything else, many times.

Sorry but I feel my points still stand quite well despite your post.

(Jak Swift) #28

Im all down for Brink being the onjective based game, but the Multiplayer is just “Campaign with randomers” and if you dont see that as ****ed up your a moron.

That aside they need to add game modes with lobbys and matching making, Obviously staying with the “Brink theme”. Im dont agree with TDM, but they do need somthing to seperate the multiplayer from the campaign, I just feel they have robbed me in that aspect.

(Jess Alon) #29

If splash damage adds TDM I won’t go trade in my copy. But I will be disappointed in the company for diverting from it’s core values. Contrary to popular belief not everyone gets their way.

(SphereCow) #30

But that’s like… only entirely what the game was meant to be.

(PowZee) #31

I really liked QW:ET. It was ahead of it’s time in many ways and to me had somewhat an empty/unfinished feel in the long run . . . so to continue on and further the concept like they’ve done with Brink is just so great. Long live Brink. I’m gladSplash Damage is sticking to their guns and I love being able to play campaign with other people instead of AI. . . No room for Lone Wolves, It’s about the team! TDM works for COD but I can’t see Brink needing it.

(weeschwee) #32

no one sees tf2’s capture point game mode as a good fit for brink? i think of the long struggles on lazytown. would be great for brink.

(dsi1) #33

TDM is a definite no, but a Brink’d CTF could be awesome.

(SockDog) #34

So we’re fine with extra modes as long as they’re ones you personally find interesting?

(SphereCow) #35

No. Deathmatch is fine. TDM is fine, tickling other players’ groins is fine, but as long as it’s constrained to individual maps. Wolf:ET had crazy, and incredibly stupid maps, that sported CTF, albeit in some strange way, i.e. basketball, hockey, or football maps where you have to run or fly through the goal with the objective to score. What would be a problem, would be if there was a gametype that allowed maps to be flagged in particular spots that would remove/alter certain areas to facilitate classic game modes.

You have to understand, Brink, ET, ET:QW, all massive games comprised of classic, and some unique game modes. Isolating explosive objectives into “bombing” or transmission objectives into “ctf” maps would be stupid, because it already exists, and the game made to have just "ctf’ maps.

Why is it endemic within all of you people who advocate CTF or TDM in Brink that you absolutely cannot read.

Why would you play anything else in Brink when it is not [b]BUILT IN SUPPORT OF THAT TYPE OF PLAY.[/b]

Allowing Brink to have a CTF gametype is like trying to play Tennis in Badminton.

It’s ****ing retarded, and the game is not built around it. For it to work, you would have to remove lots of the class abilities. On the other hand, if you implemented them, even a little bit, it would not be CTF. It would be Brink.

The problem is not with having maps have gameplay similar, or even replicating CTF or TDM, in any case. It’s with having an entirely parallel gametype have CTF or TDM. That would be a colossal mistake.

Do you understand now?

(stankin) #36

CTF with the smart system sounds like a road to frustration

(dsi1) #37

Just for you Luddens Desir: (well ok and that other guy on the SPUF but I’m lazy and just copy-pasted)

The map is a 3-tier ‘+’ shape in general, Resistance and Security starting at opposite sides, North/South and having to get the material and VIP to the West or East, respectively. Both factions start on the 2nd-tier. The North (Resistance) base has a near direct route to the East (Security) escape, a South-West route for Security. There are multiple routes throughout the map that zig-zag off the sides of the main crossing, they allow lights to make full use of the SMART system, and even encourage manual parkouring with a few special areas where SMART doesn’t work well. Mediums can reach these some of these places slowly by mantling, and Heavies can reach a few of these places more slowly by taking the stairs.

The fluff is that an experimental helicopter carrying an Ark Executive was shot down. The helicopter was able to stay in the air longer than the Resistance snatch squad anticipated. Both factions are scrambling to recover the debris and the VIP.

Notes:
Materials can only ‘escape’ with the VIP, or after he escapes.
Time is added when a main objective is completed for the first time. (for the materials this means all of the materials being in an escape vehicle)

The Main Objectives are:
Anyone:[INDENT]Capture the materials (17x materials) and bring them to your escape vehicle.
Escort the VIP to your escape route.
Destroy the enemy’s material carrying vehicle.(materials cannot be captured if the vehicle is destroyed)

Medic:
Keep the VIP up
Operative:
Hack the enemy’s material carrying vehicle (causes material to be reset, can be done if vehicle is destroyed)
Engineer:
Repair the material carrying vehicle[/INDENT]

Side Objectives:
Anyone:

[INDENT]Capture the health supply station.
Capture the supply station.
Engineer:
Construct stairway to allow quicker access to your escape route.
Soldier:
Blow up debris to allow more freedom of movement.
Blow up enemy’s shortcut stairway.[/INDENT]

Game ends when the VIP has reached the escape vehicle and all of the material is loaded onto any escape vehicle that isn’t in the process of being hacked or isn’t destroyed, or when the timer runs out.

Depending on your success you’ll get a different message, if you captured all of the material and the VIP you’ll get the best possible ending, if you got slightly less than half of the material and the VIP you’ll get an okay ending, if you captured slightly less than half of the material or just the VIP, you’ll get a mediocre ending, and if you missed out on all of it you’ll get the worst possible ending. If the time runs out you’ll get a message about the VIP dying and the material being too damaged to be worth it anymore.

This might be a bit over-thought, but I don’t go into per-level detail on the map at least ;p

(SockDog) #38

Right so basically you’re saying it wouldn’t work because you believe it would be implemented in a shoddy and broken way. Genius! Nobody is saying “hey, give us CTF and just put a couple of spawns on container city, great fun!” Of course that’s totally stupid. New maps would need to be made or existing maps modified to work with the modes.

You have to understand, Brink, ET, ET:QW, all massive games comprised of classic, and some unique game modes. Isolating explosive objectives into “bombing” or transmission objectives into “ctf” maps would be stupid, because it already exists, and the game made to have just "ctf’ maps.
Jesus, the only thing [NEW GAME MODE] and Brink OBJ would share is the engine, assets and various appropriate game mechanics. You however seem intent on insisting there has to be some intimate relationship between the two and that relationship is the exact reason why it won’t work.

Why is it endemic within all of you people who advocate CTF or TDM in Brink that you absolutely cannot read.

Why would you play anything else in Brink when it is not [b]BUILT IN SUPPORT OF THAT TYPE OF PLAY.
Oh the irony.

So we can’t have other modes because they’re not in the game? And it doesn’t occur to you that the act of putting those modes into the game would include supporting that type of play?

Again, you create a situation for failure and use it to justify your argument.

Allowing Brink to have a CTF gametype is like trying to play Tennis in Badminton.
Of course it will suck, if you insist (again) on playing badminton with a tennis ball, racket, net and layout etc. The point however is that Brink is the sports building with all the equipment. SD is the facilitator who’d set up that building to play the game you choose. After all they both need similar core requirements.

It’s not like people are asking for something that changes the basic core technology SD have in Brink. They want an FPS game with different rules, different maps but it’s still at its core an FPS.

It’s ****ing retarded, and the game is not built around it. For it to work, you would have to remove lots of the class abilities. On the other hand, if you implemented them, even a little bit, it would not be CTF. It would be Brink.
Bravo. No arguing with that really is there. If it’s CTF its stupid, if it’s modified CTF then it’s not CTF. LOL. So again we’re back to what you feel is a worthy gamemode not that it’s pointless to have anything but Brink OBJ.

The problem is not with having maps have gameplay similar, or even replicating CTF or TDM, in any case. It’s with having an entirely parallel gametype have CTF or TDM. That would be a colossal mistake.

Do you understand now?
Not really, you’ve absolutely failed to say why including a CTF gametype would be a colossal mistake beyond the scenarios you’ve painted where it’s set to fail.

(fearlessfox) #39

[QUOTE=SockDog;304894]
Not really, you’ve absolutely failed to say why including a CTF gametype would be a colossal mistake beyond the scenarios you’ve painted where it’s set to fail.[/QUOTE]

CTF would taste fine if it were Brink flavoured, but it would have to be cooked up just right to give the vital nutrients each class needs to stay strong.

Contrived metaphors are awesome, but the point is clear.

Standard CTF wouldn’t jive; the entire point of Brink is to let each classes role shine at some point each match, and the rest is what you want to make of it yourself (supporting, run and gunning, stealthing, etc…), but the thing that sets Brink apart is it’s OBJ focus.

As as long as the CTF they created kept this focus, it could be awesome and coherent. For instance:

  1. Soldier blows up “flag” casing.
  2. Anyone can carry it to a data terminal.
  3. Operative loads data onto "flag terminal.
  4. Anyone carries it to the winning spot.

2b. There are three data terminals that can be used for uploading the data to the “flag”, engineers can activate these and they must be guarded as enemy operatives can take them down. Only one can be active at any one time. Once one has been used, another terminal must be used first before it can be used again.

Misc: Medics can give a boost to the “flag” so that the carrier regens health slowly (as they cannot fire while holding.

I think what Luddens is dead against is the implementation of lazy modes to appease/draw in the generic shooter crowds, and how it could dilute Brink’s unique values.

(SphereCow) #40

[QUOTE=SockDog;304894]Right so basically you’re saying it wouldn’t work because you believe it would be implemented in a shoddy and broken way. Genius! Nobody is saying “hey, give us CTF and just put a couple of spawns on container city, great fun!” Of course that’s totally stupid. New maps would need to be made or existing maps modified to work with the modes.

Jesus, the only thing [NEW GAME MODE] and Brink OBJ would share is the engine, assets and various appropriate game mechanics. You however seem intent on insisting there has to be some intimate relationship between the two and that relationship is the exact reason why it won’t work.

Oh the irony.

So we can’t have other modes because they’re not in the game? And it doesn’t occur to you that the act of putting those modes into the game would include supporting that type of play?

Again, you create a situation for failure and use it to justify your argument.

Of course it will suck, if you insist (again) on playing badminton with a tennis ball, racket, net and layout etc. The point however is that Brink is the sports building with all the equipment. SD is the facilitator who’d set up that building to play the game you choose. After all they both need similar core requirements.

It’s not like people are asking for something that changes the basic core technology SD have in Brink. They want an FPS game with different rules, different maps but it’s still at its core an FPS.

Bravo. No arguing with that really is there. If it’s CTF its stupid, if it’s modified CTF then it’s not CTF. LOL. So again we’re back to what you feel is a worthy gamemode not that it’s pointless to have anything but Brink OBJ.

Not really, you’ve absolutely failed to say why including a CTF gametype would be a colossal mistake beyond the scenarios you’ve painted where it’s set to fail.[/QUOTE]

Am I correct in understanding that [i]you don’t understant that ctf, tdm, dm, domination, and bombingrun already exists in brink and that adding an additional gametype parallel to Objective mode

would break the game?

[U]because it would

be redundant?[/U][/i]