Grind?

(DarkangelUK) #41

[QUOTE=.Chris.;376091]See what I mean, it’s a really big deal for some, need to try think way to keep feeding their addiction whilst not ruining the experience for the rest.

Keeping all that stuff confined to a campaign mode with some of the suggestions made here would be ideal in my opinion, other modes like Stopwatch and Objective can be kept clean.[/QUOTE]
Wasn’t a ‘comp mode’ mentioned in the early days before release (I don’t want to say promised here) where everything would be set on a blanket layer and all the shiny shiny stuff would be thrown out the window and left in the soft play area for the kids to enjoy?

(tokamak) #42

[QUOTE=zenstar;376093]I’m happy with a system that makes you commit to your choices but it does come with the drawback of people being less willing to experiment with the available options. The grind is still there and each time you need to do it it makes you less likely to try another character after that.
[/QUOTE]
Experimentation should be rewarding enough by itself to be worth the cost. Having such a cost would also mean that people who put effort in trying new things can enjoy that advantage longer because it will require more effort to ‘copy’ other players.

I think it’s a bit of a moot point as the lack of any distinction between the builds makes experimentation pretty much meaningless.

(.Chris.) #43

Yeah was talked about a fair bit, usually along side fully customisable servers and such :slight_smile:

For you maybe, for others not. Some of us just want to play a game.

(zenstar) #44

[QUOTE=tokamak;376099]Experimentation should be rewarding enough by itself to be worth the cost. Having such a cost would also mean that people who put effort in trying new things can enjoy that advantage longer because it will require more effort to ‘copy’ other players.

I think it’s a bit of a moot point as the lack of any distinction between the builds makes experimentation pretty much meaningless.[/QUOTE]

I think there’s enough distinction to warrant having to level up quite a bit before you can get a good feel for the class. For example: I’m not sure what a good medic really plays like. My op/medic only goes medic for emergencies (like when we have no medics / 1 medic and noone wants to change) and I definietly feel the lack of some of the abilities (since he has very few points in the medic tree).
I would level a pure medic up but I just can’t bring myself to go through that grind again just to see if I enjoy playing the medic when the choice is “play a character I know that has the skills I want” vs “eventually get to play a character I might not like after spending hours leveling”. If I don’t like the medic I would have felt those hours wasted. In W:ET and ET:QW you could try out all the classes, find your favourite and then invest time into getting better with that class. In Brink you need to level up to at least level 10 before you can get a feel to how the class may play.

I just think the cost of experimentation is too high. Especially when it comes to a third or fourth character.

EDIT: I guess this is pretty moot if you just sell all abilities for 1 level… i concede the point to you sir. I forgot about that option.

(wolfnemesis75) #45

Positive Grind is good. Negative Grind is unlocking weapons that give advantages. Positive Grind for Brink, please. :slight_smile:

(BioSnark) #46

So what’s the distinction? Ability unlocks give advantages. Higher level means both more and more available unlocks. SD’s approach to weapon mod unlocks was balanced. SD continued their unbalanced ability unlocks from previous games but on a larger time scale in the assumption that the player base would be large and players would always be able to play with other players at a similar level and thus negate the balance problem. Regardless of how that solution looks or how many other solutions I could name off the top of my head in hindsight, lets just acknowledge that there is a balance problem as it was discussed many times prerelease by the developers, among others.

(L00fah) #47

It kind of sounds like a play-on of what a lot of RTS and Action-RTS (League of Legends, DotA, etc.) are doing… Your unlocks are available per game, rather than forever… To keep everyone on equal level. That would be great, but Brink doesn’t really support that.
It’d be an interesting FPS, that’s for sure.

Here’s what it made me think:
You only LEVEL up in-game, but RANKS are persistent. Levels are reset to 0 after every game (games aimed to last around 30 minutes, rather than 20) while your Rank displays, essentially, your overall skill in the game and your progress.
Before you start joining games, you select skills as you would normally, but these skills are not available to you instantly (excluding the class defaults like; repairing, revival and such) and place them in your assignment slots (d-pad for console players). You can also buy the “upgrade” skills, but they only become available to you once you hit a certain level in-game.
Ranks determine what skills are available for you to pick before you join a game. You still have your ranks 1-5 (maybe more, depending) and you still get ability points (to determine what loadouts you have available).
Level in-game are relatively quick… On average, everyone should be a fairly decent level by the end of the game (near max, whatever they may be). It’s yet another way of proving your worth to the team as a whole and such.

I was inspired by ARTS games, but with a common FPS flair (rank system).
I think that sounds fun as all hell, but not necessarily for Brink.

EDIT: I read a few comments that hate the leveling at all in the shooter and I have to ask, why did you pick up the game then…? It was known from day one this game was a FPS/RPG hybrid (yes, that’s exactly what it is)… If you don’t like RPG, such as leveling, you should have bought another game. One that was a pure FPS. = /
Just sayin’. I for one LOVE the hybrid. I don’t care for most pure FPS nor RPG, but the two combined is addictive.

(montheponies) #48

no, playing a skill based game where the outcome as an individual and team is predicated on how well you and they (respectively) play is tons of fun. the rest is, at best, windows dressing and at worst a source of frustration as losing can be perceived to have been as a result of a lack of a buff/weaponupgrade/nadeshoot/downedfire/selfrevive/lazarusnade etc.

I’ve never been a fan of unlock systems (tf2 sortof does it ok’ish - but then i don’t consider that a competitive fps) - however it seems like the human brain is conditioned to always want rewards (despite these being without any intrinsic value) - as an aside my lad plays on club penguin, exactly the same deal goes on there to keep him playing (and paying, as some things aren’t available unless you subscribe).

on the old w:et campaign mode progression - meh.

(Zekariah) #49

[QUOTE=.Chris.;376102]

For you maybe, for others not. Some of us just want to play a game.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but can someone please explain to me how cosmetic and bragging right unlocks impact the gameplay IN ANY WAY? I can’t understand how this could be a “problem” for anyone? IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE GAMEPLAY. It’s a bonus running in the background.

The only thing it may affect is the longevity of part of the community. Levellers will stick around a little longer. Keep the abilities and weapons the way they are, just bring in a “soft” reward sytem.

I’m yet to see an argument against it that actually has some real reasons.

(zenstar) #50

[QUOTE=Zekariah;376239]Fair enough, but can someone please explain to me how cosmetic and bragging right unlocks impact the gameplay IN ANY WAY? I can’t understand how this could be a “problem” for anyone? IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE GAMEPLAY. It’s a bonus running in the background.

The only thing it may affect is the longevity of part of the community. Levellers will stick around a little longer. Keep the abilities and weapons the way they are, just bring in a “soft” reward sytem.

I’m yet to see an argument against it that actually has some real reasons.[/QUOTE]

Same reason people didn’t want KDR in Brink. The ‘bragging and teabagging’ squad arrive to insinuate they had special relations with your fairer parent while also questioning your sexual preferences in humourously euphamistic phrases that often reference your proclivity to either package or steal feces or brown candies. And if you’re a girl then things are even ‘more fun’ for you when they arrive.

Ofc I doubt adding a grinding badge system would actually attract many of them to the game at this point and it’s not like there aren’t already teabaggers in the game (they get a surprise with downed fire though).

TL;DR: Stat padders make games sucky.

(Zekariah) #51

[QUOTE=zenstar;376086]

If you want multiple characters at top level then it is HUGE amounts of hours.
…

I’d say leveling up the characters fits in with the definition of a grind (doing the same task repeatedly for a reward). It’s not as grindy as other games, I’ll admit, but it’s still a grind.[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess I’m used to the other games you are referring to. I’m still yet to hit Brigadier in Halo: Reach and I’ve played near 200hrs, and I’m not even anywhere close to level 100 in Gears 2. But the two reasons why I’ve given so much time is 1. I love to play them, and 2. I’m enjoying reaching goals and unlocks as I progress.

But these two games are good examples of “Grinding Away” at. I’ve only got 39 logged hours on Brink and I have 2 lvl 24s and 3 lvl 20 and aboves. That’s NO TIME in comparison.

(Zekariah) #52

[QUOTE=zenstar;376240]Same reason people didn’t want KDR in Brink. The ‘bragging and teabagging’ squad arrive to insinuate they had special relations with your fairer parent while also questioning your sexual preferences in humourously euphamistic phrases that often reference your proclivity to either package or steal feces or brown candies. And if you’re a girl then things are even ‘more fun’ for you when they arrive.

Ofc I doubt adding a grinding badge system would actually attract many of them to the game at this point and it’s not like there aren’t already teabaggers in the game (they get a surprise with downed fire though).

TL;DR: Stat padders make games sucky.[/QUOTE]

You have a great way with words, zen.:smiley:

But I wouldn’t suggest an addition of this system to Brink 1. It’s far too late. Brink 2 would benefit, tho.

(SockDog) #53

@L00fah - The concept seems fine and a neat expansion on the non-persistent system W:ET and ETQW had. I’d object to the ranks though. And I bought Brink in the hope that the XP, Unlocks, Ranks, Leveling etc would come second in priority to the FPS game’s SD was known for, unfortunately the opposite was true despite some clear signs that there was a struggle.

@zenstar - Indeed. I’m not sure why it even needs to be explained. If people need a different motivation to play the game then they are not motivated by the game. That’s the third time this thread I’ve asked/implied that people play the game as a means to something other than play.

(Zekariah) #54

[QUOTE=SockDog;376244]@L00fah - The concept seems fine and a neat expansion on the non-persistent system W:ET and ETQW had. I’d object to the ranks though. And I bought Brink in the hope that the XP, Unlocks, Ranks, Leveling etc would come second in priority to the FPS game’s SD was known for, unfortunately the opposite was true despite some clear signs that there was a struggle.

@zenstar - Indeed. I’m not sure why it even needs to be explained. If people need a different motivation to play the game then they are not motivated by the game. That’s the third time this thread I’ve asked/implied that people play the game as a means to something other than play.[/QUOTE]

But that’s saying the ONLY motivation allowed on this game is the gameplay. You might aswell dump the levelling system and give everyone the full choice of weapons and abilities straight away.

(DarkangelUK) #55

I think the question is, why do so many people NEED the shiny objects and tags to play the game, is the gameplay not enough? Would you personally not like Brink as much if the leveling was dumped all weapons/abilities accessible straight away?

(SockDog) #56

I wouldn’t shed a tear. :slight_smile:

It’s not that I don’t understand people like it, I just feel pandering to those demands is an admission you have nothing else to sell the gamer. If the game is good you DO NOT need to have this crap in there to keep people playing. Proof? L4D, a defunct game, replaced by L4D2 in nearly every way is still pulling nearly 4 times the peak number of players Brink is and it’s a much older game. Grind, IMO, just appeals to some basic ape need to gather and organise. It’s a cheap parlor trick to give gamers a buzz with the added benefit that you can define with some certainty when it runs out and so peddle the next game.

As I said earlier I feel a system governed by AI would be much more appropriate to handle the issuing of weapons and abilities during a game based on the TEAM performance and not individuals.

As for addressing personal progression… isn’t this what moving to competitive gaming is meant to be for?

(RabidAnubis) #57

I feel that if they have a Brink 2 they need to do the Grind like in CoD4.

They give you the BEST weapons and abilities first, so you aren’t left behind when you are a noob… (Stopping power, M16, M4, Ak-47) but as you go along you become specialized. It avoided overwhelming people while at the same time giving the new players a chance. This is where I would say black ops messed up, they gave the best weapons LAST. And 95% of the time the good players stuck with the starting load-outs in CoD4…

But then again, that game was meant to attract people to gaming, and it succeeded. I feel as if Brink had a loss of direction somewhere along the line (Casual, tactical, or skillful FPS?) which is probably what wrecked the game for most people.

(Zekariah) #58

[QUOTE=SockDog;376248]I wouldn’t shed a tear. :slight_smile:

It’s not that I don’t understand people like it, I just feel pandering to those demands is an admission you have nothing else to sell the gamer. If the game is good you DO NOT need to have this crap in there to keep people playing. Proof? L4D, a defunct game, replaced by L4D2 in nearly every way is still pulling nearly 4 times the peak number of players Brink is and it’s a much older game. Grind, IMO, just appeals to some basic ape need to gather and organise. It’s a cheap parlor trick to give gamers a buzz with the added benefit that you can define with some certainty when it runs out and so peddle the next game.

As I said earlier I feel a system governed by AI would be much more appropriate to handle the issuing of weapons and abilities during a game based on the TEAM performance and not individuals.

As for addressing personal progression… isn’t this what moving to competitive gaming is meant to be for?[/QUOTE]

You make a good point. But Brink is not a game that has nothing else to sell to the gamer. That’s why the majority of us on the forums are still around. We love it.

Sorry, .Chris., if I took the thread off topic. The “Grind” I would like to see is not one of weapons and abilities, but medals and levels. Yes, it’s shallow. But it’s bloody fun to me. That’s why my next purchase is GoW3. Brink doesn’t NEED this. But I would very much enjoy my next Brink purchase if that was inclusive!

(.Chris.) #59

You haven’t its just where the discussion has ended up, was the whole point of starting the topic to promote discussion.

(wolfnemesis75) #60

[QUOTE=Zekariah;376258]You make a good point. But Brink is not a game that has nothing else to sell to the gamer. That’s why the majority of us on the forums are still around. We love it.

Sorry, .Chris., if I took the thread off topic. The “Grind” I would like to see is not one of weapons and abilities, but medals and levels. Yes, it’s shallow. But it’s bloody fun to me. That’s why my next purchase is GoW3. Brink doesn’t NEED this. But I would very much enjoy my next Brink purchase if that was inclusive![/QUOTE]I agree with Zekariah. He’s got the right stuff. :slight_smile: