[QUOTE=AmishWarMachine;370616]I can see that… as Strogg vs GDF would be a ton easier to identify than the US vs Russia of BC2…
…but now we’re talking faction, not class.[/QUOTE]
It all ties into each other. Because the factions are not easily identifiable fork one another, I have trouble identifying classes as well, and I have over 350hrs. in BC2. The only 2 classes that I never confuse, are Medics and Recon, for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE=AmishWarMachine;370610]That’s all well and good… but we’re not talking about (this thread isn’t about) what you do with the gained information regarding a player’s class. We’re talking about the act of gaining that information. In Brink, you still have to strategize how you’re going to deal with the various players and classes in the game, but before you can do that, you have to identify them. You have to do the homework. Again, I just don’t understand how that is not adding to the game, or taking from it.
Re: My mentioning of BC2. I only used BC2 as it is a game many have played where the models are class-based in their look… which is how W:ET/QW:ET have been described. The purpose was to establish a more widely recognized parallel. My point with which still holds, is that it takes 0 brain power for me to identify a Medic vs an Engineer vs a Recon vs an Assault in BC2 because their class-specific looks make them plain as day.
What I have done is exactly what you have done… taken my experience, and my brain, and formed an opinion or judgement. Nowhere in the definition of “estimation” do the words “guessing”, “assuming”, or “ignorance” exist.
I am more than willing to concede that I don’t know how the other SD games work… but to completely disregard the experiences, conclusions, and/or opinions of others by this arbitrary line in the sand that you’ve drawn… how exactly does that make for good faith debate?
Unless you’re not here to debate?[/QUOTE]
Dude…seriously. BF doesn’t have the same flow that W:ET had. In W:ET the classes are much more tactical to the outcome. The game’s pace was very methodical and strategic especially in competitive matches.
The difference between our experience is that I have experienced what we are debating in an SD game…you haven’t. Your experience is with a DICE developed game. Totally different.
Here is the most basic of situations that unfortunately I have to explain to you because you have no clue how this could be beneficial.
So time is running out. It’s up to me because everyone on my team is waiting to respawn. There are two of the opposing team and I’m left guarding the objective. They rush in and I barely manage to kill one guy…but the guy I kill is the medic and the objective guy kills me and wins the match!!!
Now let’s play out this basic SD games 101 scenario with being able to tell classes. They rush in. I can tell one of them is the objective guy (soldier, engineer). I rush him and kill him and finish off his body before the medic revives him or kills me…we win!
Remember…time is running out so the medic doesn’t have enough time to finish me off…revive him and then have his teammate do the objective.
Get it now? I’m gonna guess probably not.
No, I get it. The disparaging tone was a nice added touch too!
What I still don’t get, is why in a thread that was created the the specific purpose of people sharing how they identified classes in Brink, because they weren’t readily recognizable… has been turned on its side and into the throes of a completely tangential and largely irrelevant argument.
I don’t argue that if each class had a very distinct look, that it would serve advantageous in the heat of battle. Duh, how could more information immediately be a bad thing?
I think think of the way Brink handles it as an added challenge. You think of it as an added frustration. Fair enough. To each their own, right?
i propose that security shoots blue lasers and resistance shoots red lasers, so we can at least keep that straight.
[QUOTE=AmishWarMachine;370602]What I understand:
~You’ve played other/previous SD games.
~You prefer what those previous games brought to the table.
~You feel that being able to quickly (immediately) identify player class adds to the game
What I DON’T understand:
~My not having played previous SD games makes my opinion of what makes a good game invalid
~How NOT being able to instantly identify player class couldn’t possibly add to the game, but only take from*.
In my estimation, without classes being immediately identifiable, it takes more brainpower to do so and therefor adds to the game by forcing people to use more of their gray matter. It’s contradictory that many Comp people often refer to wanting to be rewarded for their skill, then argue against a game mechanic that actually takes more skill… because identifying a medic in BC2… doesn’t take any skill, all it takes is optic nerves and a semi-functioning brain.
Which, of course, was the entire point of Throbblefoot’s posting of this thread… to see how others identified the enemy’s class, through observation.[/QUOTE]
Not having played ET or ETQW doesnt make your opinion invalid.
No one would read your posts if that was the case 
The skill isnt in observing who is what class - its what you do with that information.
If youve got terrible aim, youre going to go for the soldier on a plant objective. If youve got great aim, youre going to go for the medic before you even think about the soldier to prevent the revive. Like you said its not difficult, its not rocket science but its that comes with the territory with an ET game.
In ETQW being able to determine class is important, not only for efficient fighting, but because it employs a counter system. Each class has a weapon tied to it, and the weapon stats determine how lethal that class is at a certain range, in conjunction with that class’ abilities.
A Technician (medic) vs a Rocket Soldier for example - the rocket soldier has the advantage at close range because he has the Machine Pistol as a secondary. At mid range, the tech has the advantage because he has the Lacerator and he can also pack himself up easier at range when low on ammo and health. Then theres different terrain levels that determine whether the rocket soldier needs to get a direct hit with the rocket, or whether he can simply shoot at the techs feet and get a splash damage bonus. So being able to identify not only the class but their weapon and the terrain, determines whether you retreat or whether you fight.
All of that is just observation btw 
thx humate, that seems like detailed (yet concise) explanation of why class archetypes were helpful (or even necessary) in ETQW
[QUOTE=Humate;370628]Not having played ET or ETQW doesnt make your opinion invalid.
No one would read your posts if that was the case
The skill isnt in observing who is what class - its what you do with that information.
If youve got terrible aim, youre going to go for the soldier on a plant objective. If youve got great aim, youre going to go for the medic before you even think about the soldier to prevent the revive. Like you said its not difficult, its not rocket science but its that comes with the territory with an ET game.
In ETQW being able to determine class is important, not only for efficient fighting, but because it employs a counter system. Each class has a weapon tied to it, and the weapon stats determine how lethal that class is at a certain range, in conjunction with that class’ abilities.
A Technician (medic) vs a Rocket Soldier for example - the rocket soldier has the advantage at close range because he has the Machine Pistol as a secondary. At mid range, the tech has the advantage because he has the Lacerator and he can also pack himself up easier at range when low on ammo and health. Then theres different terrain levels that determine whether the rocket soldier needs to get a direct hit with the rocket, or whether he can simply shoot at the techs feet and get a splash damage bonus. So being able to identify not only the class but their weapon and the terrain, determines whether you retreat or whether you fight.
All of that is just observation btw [/QUOTE]
Agree with TSM, thank you, Humate.
Better awareness of the nuances which made the ET’s so popular helps in understanding the concerns and frustrations that Brink’s differences create.
Would you qualify Brink’s handling of classes (no discernable visual differentiation) a game-breaker, or just a nuisance (in what seems like a really long list of)?
[QUOTE=AmishWarMachine;370631]Agree with TSM, thank you, Humate.
Better awareness of the nuances which made the ET’s so popular helps in understanding the concerns and frustrations that Brink’s differences create.
Would you qualify Brink’s handling of classes (no discernable visual differentiation) a game-breaker, or just a nuisance (in what seems like a really long list of)?[/QUOTE]
I know you didn’t ask me but I will answer. I don’t think it’s a gamebreaker. It just boggles the mind as to why SD would not know the advantages themselves considering they made the game lol.
There are other things that are more gamebreaking than this but it’s really disappointing that they changed things that weren’t broken and could have spent time making the game better in other ways.
[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;370603]
Let’s not forget that the Brink was based on W:ET as a starting point. How they missed some of the things that made that game great are beyond me.[/QUOTE]
I believe Throbblefoot said it best earlier in the thread:
[QUOTE=Throbblefoot;370119]
Yeah, I’d be happy for SD for having some staying power. But then, I don’t want them to fail just because Brink isn’t ET3.[/QUOTE]
Brink isn’t ET3, adapt or fade away.
Fine, then you admit you are siding with a particular point of view. Good to finally know what your opinion is. Just try to tone down the hypocrisy a bit in your future posts please.
-JJ
Maybe, just maybe, someone is working on…
“Brink: Enemy Territory”
But for now we will all have to make do with Brink.
V1ck_Db, I am with Amish, how is it game breaking to not have a cardboard cutout class specific look to a character? What is so critically important about it? Is it not just an old mechanic from years gone by that people have got used too and can’t let go? Would you consider the old way “easy mode”?
[QUOTE=Spendlove;370644]Maybe, just maybe, someone is working on…
“Brink: Enemy Territory”
But for now we will all have to make do with Brink.
V1ck_Db, I am with Amish, how is it game breaking to not have a cardboard cutout class specific look to a character? What is so critically important about it? Is it not just an old mechanic from years gone by that people have got used too and can’t let go? Would you consider the old way “easy mode”?[/QUOTE]
I get that Brink added a new spin, and I’m not resisting change just because it’s change. For reasons aforementioned, it’s a step backwards though. While customizing appearance to the degree possible in Brink is an interesting idea, it also strips some depth away from the game due to the genre of the game. Removing readily identifiable classes in a team based objective game is akin to removing the crosshair completely in a first person shooter or removing an inventory system from an rpg, they’re both staple mechanics in their genre. I could say over and over it’s a new mechanic, but that doesn’t make it a good mechanic.
Keep in mind, they marketed this game towards competitive and casual players alike. An option to force class models would have been great and everyone would be happy. And as far as “wish list” items people have that never made it into the final product due to possible time constraints, it seems like something that would not have taken a lot of time to implement.
It seems to me that you are proposing a nerf to the Operative’s disguise Ability. Or am I mistaken?
Personally I think the appearance customization adds to the depth of the game. (Weird that customization would add to depth huh?)
-JJ
[QUOTE=Jimmy James;370651]It seems to me that you are proposing a nerf to the Operative’s disguise Ability. Or am I mistaken?
Personally I think the appearance customization adds to the depth of the game. (Weird that customization would add to depth huh?)
-JJ[/QUOTE]
Where did I mention a nerf in the operative’s disguise ability?
Customization adds depth if implemented correctly. In a normal FPS it would add, albeit meaningless, depth. Brink is not just any other fps though with your standard fare of dm, tdm, or even ctf. It’s a class based objective team game.
Um, nice? You’ve noticed the obvious. Good for you, guy. It shouldn’t have been that hard to tell from all my posts that I have a point of view. I wouldn’t be in the developer’s forums if not to offer my criticisms on the game. I guess it’s “hypocrisy” though. Such a shame. On the bright side, you are obviously “neutral,” mate, so good on you.
Just to reiterate, because I’m a hypocrite, regardless of whether it is knee-jerk defense or an actual opinion, there is something behind arguing that ambiguous classes adds something to the game, even if that wasn’t SD’s intent. And, people can argue that that’s good or, in my experience, bad. That just is not the case when arguing that there’s either customization or class insignia because it isn’t either, or.
[QUOTE=Spendlove;370644]Maybe, just maybe, someone is working on…
“Brink: Enemy Territory”
But for now we will all have to make do with Brink.
V1ck_Db, I am with Amish, how is it game breaking to not have a cardboard cutout class specific look to a character? What is so critically important about it? Is it not just an old mechanic from years gone by that people have got used too and can’t let go? Would you consider the old way “easy mode”?[/QUOTE]
When did I say it was gamebreaking? Please…enlighten me.
This definitely jibes with the observation I made a couple pages ago:
I think it’s good. It makes me pay attention to the behaviors and looks of the other team, the latter of which makes the customization aspect more interesting to me. Yet I get that not everyone likes the mechanic.
-Throbblefoot
I swear, talking to half the people in this forum is like talking to a brick wall. I’m not going to quote the whole 2 posts I made on this page. You can use some reading comprehension.
[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;370636]I know you didn’t ask me but I will answer. I don’t think it’s a gamebreaker. It just boggles the mind as to why SD would not know the advantages themselves considering they made the game lol.
There are other things that are more gamebreaking than this but it’s really disappointing that they changed things that weren’t broken and could have spent time making the game better in other ways.[/QUOTE]
I did not ask you, but I appreciate and respect your response nonetheless. I don’t engage into debates, to pick fights. I engage to understand.
My guess, and that is exactly what this is, is that SD may have decided they wanted to shake things up a bit. Change the equation. In doing so, they upset the applecart, so to speak.
Sometimes the same old thing isn’t better, it’s just familiar. Just like sometimes change isn’t better, it’s just different.
I don’t think he was necessarily meaning to accuse you of have having said as much, but it might have been gleaned/inferred from my question to Humate, to which you answered… as well as by the enthusiasm with which you’ve posted about this particular subject.
Another guess~
Since when did spray and pray become tactical? I guess you can go with the view that you can use enemy positioning and their current actions to determine who is what, and what the best target is to go for 1st, but the time it takes to process such little information combined with the spread makes thinking a negative action… so spray and pray it is then.