Knowing is Half the Battle (Class Recognition)

(Throbblefoot) #1

I’ve been thinking about the topic of recognizing enemy classes. I thought I’d break off part of the conversation from the recent thread on backpacks.

For myself, I can often tell the classes of the people on the opposite team. If hes’a heavy, he’s probably not Ops. If he’s ankle-deep in his teams’ corpses, he’s probably not a Medic. In ET:QW, you could just look at a player’s model and know his class. In Brink, you need to look at his behavior.

So, what other Brink behaviors give away your class?

-Throbblefoot

(Ojama666) #2

Well, I am awesome, usually means that the class I am playing is, awesome. No but seriously I have no problem spotting them, on the PS3 when I look at an enemy it tells me his class anyway :slight_smile:

(H0RSE) #3

I think the point you guys are missing is that in previous SD games, class recognition was tied to appearance - each class had a specific player model to correspond. This made it much less cumbersome to identify and prioritize targets in the heat of battle. Having to aim at each player individually in order to see which class they are, without any other visual clue, is counterproductive to this process. If there is a bunch of downed enemies and 3 or 4 alive enemies nearby, I would like to know which on is the Medic way before I have to aim at him.

At least they could have made the backpacks different for each class, which was their original intention.

(Jimmy James) #4

[QUOTE=H0RSE;369773]I think the point you guys are missing is that in previous SD games, class recognition was tied to appearance - each class had a specific player model to correspond. This made it much less cumbersome to identify and prioritize targets in the heat of battle. Having to aim at each player individually in order to see which class they are, without any other visual clue, is counterproductive to this process. If there is a bunch of downed enemies and 3 or 4 alive enemies nearby, I would like to know which on is the Medic way before I have to aim at him.

At least they could have made the backpacks different for each class, which was their original intention.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think they are missing the point at all.

In previous SD games you could spot an enemy (or friendly) class by their silhouette/texture. Now, with Brink, you must analyze the behavior of your enemies. It’s a new game and a new way to play.

Maybe in a DLC they could add an “Enhanced Tactical Scanner” Ability (Tactical Scanner prerequisite) that reveals enemy’s classes without having to target them?

That said: TAKE OFF THE BACKPACKS AND PUSH THEM INTO THE SEA!

-JJ

(H0RSE) #5

[QUOTE=Jimmy James;369778]I don’t think they are missing the point at all.

In previous SD games you could spot an enemy (or friendly) class by their silhouette/texture. Now, with Brink, you must analyze the behavior of your enemies. It’s a new game and a new way to play.
-JJ[/QUOTE]

It’s not “a new way to play.” It’s simply the side effects of a poorly implemented feature. The fact that the backpacks were originally said to be used to identify classes, shows that aiming at a player or observing behavior, was not the (original) intended method for class recognition.

(Jimmy James) #6

And now it is. A new way to play! Good times.

Cheers,
JJ

(H0RSE) #7

It’s like saying beating players to death with their guns is a “new way to play,” because the developers failed to implement a shooting mechanic into a game.

(Jimmy James) #8

Or the developers decided to do something different. Software development goes through many “cycles” before release and the mechanics and interface are changed up to the deadline. So, I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to assume that SD didn’t implement certain game mechanics because they “failed to implement” them.

-JJ

(Throbblefoot) #9

Gripping as this argument is, I gotta say it’s off topic. It’s not about whether ET:QW or Brink did it right, it’s about how player behavior can tip you off. In ET:QW, an Ops in disguise can tip his hand by rushing the objective. I made some cases for obvious behaviors in Brink in the first post.

Let’s hear some more Brink behaviors that tip you off.

-Throbblefoot

(lobster) #10

It’s extremely hard to distinguish between the two teams. I am use to games like TF2, where you can tell instantly which team a player is on and what class they are. I usually go by the huds in Brink, if he doesn’t have a hud, I open fire. The thing is, when the screen gets cluttered with huds, or when you have a bunch of people fighting in a tight space, it’s extremely hard to tell who is who. They should of went with some basic team colors and silhouettes that stand out more.

(Thundermuffin) #11

This is why games are so screwed up; you accept this and other lackluster design screw ups as amazing design decisions, but they just aren’t. An amazing design decision was what they did with the Strogg in ET:QW; this, however, just reeks of, “we couldn’t finish what we started,” much like the rest of the game. That’s sad, too, as BRINK had a lot of potential and I was really rooting for it and talking it up to my friends. I made lots of them buy it because it was, “freaking SD developing it, man.”

There are no behaviors that instantly tip you off unless they’re doing an objective or just tossed a buff (and even then maybe they self buffed); other than that you’re screwed if you walk into a room of 2 people without them doing an objective or buffing the other.

(thesuzukimethod) #12

i’m pretty visually wired, so it only takes 1-2 iterations with an opposing team before I’ve associated class with (visual) identity - so i’m biased* in liking not having my hand held in which class is which (*because it benefits me).

back OT: it’s pretty obvious that you’ve got an operative (in disguise) when they beeline through your defensive line and squat behind the furthest back turret (i’m surprised how often i get away with this, honestly).

(V1cK_dB) #13

[QUOTE=Jimmy James;369778]I don’t think they are missing the point at all.

In previous SD games you could spot an enemy (or friendly) class by their silhouette/texture. Now, with Brink, you must analyze the behavior of your enemies. It’s a new game and a new way to play.

Maybe in a DLC they could add an “Enhanced Tactical Scanner” Ability (Tactical Scanner prerequisite) that reveals enemy’s classes without having to target them?

That said: TAKE OFF THE BACKPACKS AND PUSH THEM INTO THE SEA!

-JJ[/QUOTE]

Analyze the behavior? What kind of garbage are you talking about? It was a bad design decision. I bet they didn’t even think about it that way…it just happened. Yes in previous SD games you can tell their class by the way they look and now you have to watch for “behaviors” lmao. You had to do that in W:ET too…but you also could tell by their uniform.

Anyway…this game’s failure is proof enough for me that “design decisions” like bad spread (especially at launch), horrendous lag, no lobbies for console, no distinct look for classes like 10 year old games did or even a current FPS monster like TF2 were due to SD making poor decisions that they are now paying for with their reputation and dying online community even though it did get a lift with DLC and weapon updates.

You can keep making crap up and making excuses for bad decisions. All of your fluff can’t cover it up and you can’t fool people. For once I agree 100% with Horse. I can’t believe I just typed that.

(Hot-Wire) #14

I make it easier for my enemy.

My engineer class has the hard hat.
My medic is dressed all in white.
My Operative is light and has the freak mask.
My soldier has some sort of heavy armor on. … and is a heavy :).

(morguen87) #15

I’ve been saying we need forced class models from day one. I pissed a lot of people off by telling them I couldn’t care less about character outfits and that I’m not playing Brink to dress up my very own Ken doll. I’m playing Brink to play a team objective class based shooter and being able to immediately identify enemy classes is paramount. It’s been a few months, maybe the novelty factor has worn off, maybe people are finally sick of playing with their dolls, let’s see if there’s more support now.

The amount of poor design decisions in this game at the most basic level are absolutely astounding. It’s great you guys are taking criticism, but how on Earth did it get this bad in the first place? Where the hell were your heads when you decided to make the classes in a class based objective shooter indistinguishable?

As far as I’m concerned, adding the customization was a cheap way to try to justify selling Brink as a full title. Otherwise it’s got XBox Live Arcade written all over it: 8 maps and very, very little content if one were to strip the barbie doll outfits from the game.

Again, this is something i’ve been saying from day one. Oh by the way, the counter strike team objective based shooter that’s coming to consoles? Yeah, it’s going to be an online title. They’re not going to pad it with fluff just to try to sell it as a full title.

Even Team Fortress 2 came with Portal and Half Life 2.

Brink was a good idea, but it was obviously rushed and a product of one bad design decision after another. How many new people did you hire for Brink? How many of them made a shooter before? This has debut game written all over it. I’d be handing out pink slips. And I mean that with all honesty, from top to bottom. From programmers at all levels, to the map designers, to the people that were supposedly testing it, to the pr department for the huge “we have changes in june coming…i mean july…i mean august” debacle that made many players give up on the game due to months of mysterious silence.

If I was making a multiplayer game I absolutely wouldn’t want anyone that was involved with Brink, at any level. Brink is SD’s scarlet letter. You gotta wear it now SD.

(gooey79) #16

In the design process the decision must have been:

Customisation>gameplay

As customisation won the day. Class recognition is a brilliant element of their previous games and I’m a little sad it wasn’t included here. I agree there should be an option to force models but they’d probably argue it makes the game ‘unbalanced’.

Unfortunately, in the pursuit of profit; shiny shiny was deemed the more important feature. To be fair, they succeeded but after I’ve designed my character (near the start) all I care about is the gameplay.

In answer to the OP, I don’t look for specific behaviour. I shoot at anything that’s the enemy. Only exception to that is if they’re already interacting with the objective (in which case, it’s not class I’m looking for - it’s objective completer) or I’m a Covert Ops, sorry…Operative (and I try and help the team by spotting key players).

(Spendlove) #17

Design decisions? Backpacks? Who cares! Kill em all. Everyone of them.

Comp playaz calm your twitchy fingers.

Do you not think it looks better with people dressing differently? I do.

Op.

Ops are perhaps the easiest to spot on behaviour. Trying to get past you is a dead giveaway. Tap one shot into them and problem solved.

Soldiers are chucking mollies and nades again easy to spot.

Medics are running to the dying.

Enjies are at the back with the sniper rifle.

I find it a doddle to tell who is who. The icons over the player are a giveaway for starters.

How come pro comp playaz, who constantly have to change tactics en masse on the fly in a game, can’t handle characters not being cardboard cut outs?

Then again, it’s always the same names upset about this so not that pro afterall guys? :wink: x x x

(Tom12121112) #18

ON TOPIC:

GLs in any form tip off to a soldier.

(iFork) #19

You’d get killed by a carb=9 before you can analyse their behaviour

(1111) #20

I dunno, Heavies who run out of ammo all the time are most likely Engineers. :rolleyes: