No Team Deathmatch??

(flip2k9) #1

Im really glad Splash Damage is coming up with something new
but different modes would be nice too
i know this game is all about teamplay but sometimes is just fun
if you can parkour around and kill as many as posible with a team deathmatch and get kills to brag about
make more options for the brink so it doesnt get bored
do you think its still possible?

(Nikto) #2

team deathmatch is one of those strange gamemodes, as if people send groups to fight eachother, just to see what group kills most, it’d come closest to gladiators, and even then…

and it could be an extra option, but i’d suggest putting it somewhere low on the list to do.
there’s lots of other games that sport that gamemode

(LyndonL) #3

Who let in all the Bethesda forum goers :tongue:

(Nikto) #4

well, this forum is being called the forum for the elite it seems, many people assume they fall in that category, i myself just came to get more information:)

(Reanimator) #5

I’m just hoping we don’t have a large amount of people actually playing Brink like TDM.

(tokamak) #6

Damn, who ruined this?

(DouglasDanger) #7

There is no need for elitism.

I would like to see a deathmatch option. And a capture the flag option, and some kind of hold this object while everyone else tries to kill you option.

Options are good. If you can do lots of things in a game, you will keep playing that game.

(flip2k9) #8

[QUOTE=DouglasDanger;242487]There is no need for elitism.

I would like to see a deathmatch option. And a capture the flag option, and some kind of hold this object while everyone else tries to kill you option.

Options are good. If you can do lots of things in a game, you will keep playing that game.[/QUOTE]

I totaly agree!

(tokamak) #9

The maps are objective oriented and therefore unlikely to make for any interesting games in other modes.

It’s not really elitism, but I did enjoy the ‘clique’ while it lasted. That way the discussions (like new modes) wouldn’t keep repeating themselves as everyone already the current state of the debate.

(DarkangelUK) #10

Maybe make a sticky “Note: Anything you think hasn’t been discussed has already been discussed… unless it’s new footage we’ve all just seen”

(flip2k9) #11

ok I tried to look around if this topic is allready in discussed but there’s too many topic so i just gave it a try… im new with this forum stuff so any advise is welcome

and yea i guess not everybody agree for brink to have more option but im just sayin
same stuff same mode will eventually gets old in time

(tokamak) #12

Yeah people mainly have that sentiment when they’re used to simple modes like TDM and CTF in games. However in objective games, like in W:ET and ETQW, every map can be considered a game-mode on it’s own. Every map players completely differently because it has it’s own scenario. Now add perk-customisation, classes, bodytypes and weapons and you’ve got an infinite amount of ways one map can be played.

(Nikto) #13

[QUOTE=DouglasDanger;242487]There is no need for elitism.

I would like to see a deathmatch option. And a capture the flag option, and some kind of hold this object while everyone else tries to kill you option.

Options are good. If you can do lots of things in a game, you will keep playing that game.[/QUOTE]

deathmatch, i can see about 95% playing medic

capture the flag, this one could work, but i believe it’s been mixed in some maps?

king of the hill, heavy medic would be one of the more chosen classes i think, light operative would be least seen(again, i think)

(LyndonL) #14

I couldn’t disagree more. If the maps are solid enough you’ll never get sick of them.

How old is CS:S and TF2 and how few maps do they have. They’re still played over and over and over. I know lots of people with well over 1000 hours on those games. You can’t tell me that CS:S is a complex game… yet look at it. Same goes for TF2.

(Wraith) #15

[QUOTE=tokamak;242491]The maps are objective oriented and therefore unlikely to make for any interesting games in other modes.
[/QUOTE]

Brink’s objective style gameplay is one of the things I look forward too most. If you are set of Team Deathmatch plenty of other games can fulfill that need. Brink has other plans.

[QUOTE=LyndonL;242501]I couldn’t disagree more. If the maps are solid enough you’ll never get sick of them.

How old is CS:S and TF2 and how few maps do they have. They’re still played over and over and over. I know lots of people with well over 1000 hours on those games. You can’t tell me that CS:S is a complex game… yet look at it. Same goes for TF2.[/QUOTE]

So so true.

(Nail) #16

you can play DM all you want, but your team will be relagated to playing the same level forever, only by winning the match will you move on (in campaign). I agree other modes could be interesting, but I’d rather see custom maps used for TDM or CTF than use the objective maps so they don’t detract from the core gameplay

(DouglasDanger) #17

I know there are multi shooter games. I really enjoy Brink’s artstyle and SMART and everything, and think it would make for some very interesting gameplay outside of objective games. Can you imagine something like “get the guy with the satchel” when everyone is using SMART?

Or deathmatch with SMART? That could be something almost like what Action Half Life or the Specialists were reaching for.

If it is not in the main release, I hope there is some kind of DLC six months later or so.

Last I played CS, it was only the really hardcore people left. The people that know where to run in a hallway to get somewhere faster, that can damn near play it in their sleep. The people that used to make hostage ladders in that warehouse map, that sort of thing. And this was about five years ago. That’s cool and all, but I don’t have time to master a game 100% like that and work all of the exploits and everything.

I would like Brink to have a large, stable player group for a long time, but I fear that if there is only one game type, we will be left with the hardcore crowd and none else after a year.

(Slade05) #18

Deathmatch with a lot of walljumping and crouchsliding already exists and it is free. Search for Warsow.

And consider this: ET games always were more demanding in terms of energy and mindwork, hence not very big and hardcore community. TDM/DM lowest common denominator games will always be bigger, this is the fact of life and there is nothing SD, you or me can do. Exchanging a metagame they crafted who knows how long just for all those narrowminded Halo/BC2 kids short attention spans does not look right with me, because in the span of next six months another CoD gets released and wooosh they are all gone forever. I somehow suspect Wedgewood boys want their games to have a better longevity.

Besides, SD is already playing this attraction game with overblown character customization and persistent awards.

(tokamak) #19

I don’t think people have any idea what they’re asking. An objective map has a completely different design than a deathmatch map. An objective map needs to be somewhat biased towards a certain side, making for more interesting holds and firefights. A deathmatch map needs to be able to work towards all sides.

‘Generic’ shooters can afford multiple game-modes as the maps are all made for unbiased gameplay. With objective type games, you need to chose. That way, any deatmatch-type map added to the game, will be one objective map less to play.

Objective maps offer far more replay value and are completely tailored to get the most out of the other mechanics of the game. If you had to chose, would you really pick a plain deathmatch map over an objective map?

(H0RSE) #20

[QUOTE=tokamak;242528]I don’t think people have any idea what they’re asking. An objective map has a completely different design than a deathmatch map. An objective map needs to be somewhat biased towards a certain side, making for more interesting holds and firefights. A deathmatch map needs to be able to work towards all sides.

‘Generic’ shooters can afford multiple game-modes as the maps are all made for unbiased gameplay. With objective type games, you need to chose. That way, any deatmatch-type map added to the game, will be one objective map less to play.

Objective maps offer far more replay value and are completely tailored to get the most out of the other mechanics of the game. If you had to chose, would you really pick a plain deathmatch map over an objective map?[/QUOTE]
The counter I can see people making to this argument, would simply be, “just have different maps for deathmatch.”