Permanent sides?

(iFork) #1

Should the characters you choose belong to a side permanently? Especially since they’ll be more emphasis on the Security vs Resistance from the soon to be released dlc(for pc)

Opinions?

(its al bout security) #2

it eould be cool but i see most people pick resistance and i wouldn’t be comfortable ending up in more and mor empty matches.

i think it would be really cool if my character had an actual role in the story… maybe if they had a differentiation between campaign and MP… idk what to say.

(itsme) #3

So if you join a clan. You should pick a clan on the ‘right’ side orrrr have 2 characters, 1 on each side

(light_sh4v0r) #4

Well if you want to play just half a game… :rolleyes:

(itsme) #5

not half a game. we dont care about singelplayer anyway. but if you play stopwatch you either defend of attack so

(cheezespread) #6

So to switch to security for map , you have to disconnect & use your security character ? - Isnt it already a pain to disconnect to switch bodytype ?

(Oschino1907) #7

Keep the half baked already been talked about well before release ideas commin guys!!!

(bastuden) #8

You guys just don’t see the bigger picture, I feel sorry for those who never played MAG, you have no idea how much the way this game is design, short changes the story, yes we should be stuck on a side.

(bastuden) #9

Again another person who does not get it. This is a mildness shooter right now, with no purpose but to level up and complete objectives for what? What the OP iis suggesting would change all that and make this a real war!

There are no winners are looser in Brink, each match means nothing, absolutely nothing, because there is no loyalty, THERE IS NO BATTLE FOR THE ARK! We just freaking randomly join a random side and just fight for no greater purpose I was hoping after MAG release people would stop making mindless shooters like this. Especially when this story is crying for a persistent world!

(Oschino1907) #10

I played MAG all the way through Beta to Release, great concept adn ideas, I supported it, but its not nearly as good or perfect as you think it is. It got old watching the same Factions winning more often on certain maps, my clan jumped around playing all the factions more then twice, all it really ended up doing was making people switch factions every so often to help the game feel fresh due to a TOTAL lack of story, real cutscenes and a Battle that overall was just as useless as Brink. Not like when your faction was winning it changed anything about the game… Not to mention leadership roles are no fun at all when the same couple of guys in your clan are always the ones getting to use them.

If you want a game with meaning behind the battles check out Dust 514 for Ps3, otherwsie have fun never playing a game with a true meaning behind the multiplayer. MAG in that department was overrated, it def didnt work as intended, VERY FEW actually stuck to one side and now you can make more then one character to play on all factions.

DUST 514
DUST 514
DUST 514

FOLLOW IT!!!

(LubedScotsman) #11

Yeh, I have to agree with Oschino. MAG factions were fun to begin with, but the problem with MAG was that SVER had an advantage early on with all of their maps in defense. They had the best bunker layouts in Acquisition and Domination for defense (all bunkers close to the initial chokepoints, each other, and IN FRONT the gates). That changed slightly with the random map and anyone can defend any map. SVER though has all the benefits on every map and people are such point whores that the best players stay there, and n00bs always go to Valor or Raven because “they look cool” or are “Super Americans”.

(bastuden) #12

OK well MAG when I played it was not that way at all, so I guess I am talking about the early stages, I understand you want to come off politically correct, but this is not a argument and you know what the hell I am talking about when I say the overall purpose feeling this game should have is wasted. Also here is another little idea that just popped up in my head, you know the whole clan system every game has, we cut it out and add a new system called the merc system, players above the level of ?? can become mercs and fight for either side within a merc(clan) group. Of course there would have to be something put in place to make it difficult for just any player to become a merc,maybe merc would have to keep a certain kill death ratio, oh my god wait… yEAH i SEE IT NOW… With a system like that a loosing faction could hire mercs with experience points or something like that, have not thought it out yet(which would have to be high level characters with top tier stats, otherwise you’d loose your merc status) to fight for them, or maybe to greater balance the game would set it up so that mercs could only fight for loosing factions. Therefore it would always be even! Anyone see where I am going with this?

(bastuden) #13

So are you guys saying there is nothing other developers could learn from MAG just because they got something wrong and we should just play random shooters like these with no purpose forever?

(Oschino1907) #14

MAG was like 50 diff games throughout its lifespan… I for one hope SD doesnt go that route and keeps the core of Brink the same… Maybe for Brink 2.

Otherwise all I can say is “You just don’t get it”, I guess all the Devs have no idea what they were doing or how to make a game. Maybe they should hire you if you really feel like YOU “get it” and they are the lost minds who let it slip right under their nose.

(bastuden) #15

[QUOTE=Oschino1907;343828]MAG was like 50 diff games throughout its lifespan… I for one hope SD doesnt go that route and keeps the core of Brink the same… Maybe for Brink 2.

Otherwise all I can say is “You just don’t get it”, I guess all the Devs have no idea what they were doing or how to make a game. Maybe they should hire you if you really feel like YOU “get it” and they are the lost minds who let it slip right under their nose.[/QUOTE]

Forget it man, its hopeless, I can’t believe your OK what this, people like you are the reason FPS’s will never evolve. If you can honestly look at this story and tell me that there not something wrong with us being separated by sides and fighting in a persistent world with and overall purpose and virtually map that shows us who is winning the overall war and what maps need more support from our faction, etc… Than I am done, seriously. Its not that I think every game needs this, it’s the story that tells me this game was made for that.

(bastuden) #16

I am so sick and tired of you freaking care bears and I am even more pissed now that you told me they ruined MAG so that it can support care bears who complain one side is winning, I have at least 5 ideas that can balance a game without letting people just simply jump ship and fight for the winning side! But I see no one here give a flying freak so cool… God if i ever get lucky enough to develop an fps :frowning:

(Oschino1907) #17

You are just looking way to far into this and not seeing the obvious problems it would cause with gameplay. Be more objective with your idea and look at the negative as well, feel like your only trying to find a positive route. I honestly dont play with or know of anyone outside of yourself who really cares at all about who is winning the battle for the Ark or which side they play for… Do the work yourself and dont make everyone explain all the reasons it would mess up way more then it would “fix”, Listen to the Devs, their is a reason they are making games and you are only playing them.

(bastuden) #18

really, really are you serious you think more people play this than they do World of Warcraft or any other persistence world MMO LOOOOOOOOOOOLZ, you have no idea what your talking about brother.

Persistent world are the future of fps brother, but its cool splash damage can drop the ball., I’ll be sure to pull this thread up 5 years from now when it become the norm.

You represent a small number of gamers, I am trying to reach a much bigger audience that would also include you, you just don’t realize it yet. Yes you would play my version of Brink, that honestly is not much different than the one we have now, the only major difference is the stat site would be in the game as turned into a virtual map where player can click on to ienter battles and look at statistics of each map and who is winning and how many people and games are going on

remember this? http://www.splashdamage.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28666

(bastuden) #19

You represent a small number of gamers, I am trying to reach a much bigger audience that would also include you, you just don’t realize it yet. Yes you would play my version of Brink, that honestly is not much different than the one we have now, the only major difference is the stat site would be in the game as turned into a virtual map where player can click on to inter battles and look at statistics of each map and who is winning and how many people and games are going on

(Oschino1907) #20

Guess you skipped this part genius, its the next game I will more then likely be getting into after Brink, already in the early stages of getting a Merc group set up through a big online clan. If you want a real FPS game with meaning this is it and it will be the FIRST EVER MMOFPS game for console.

[QUOTE=Oschino1907;343814]
If you want a game with meaning behind the battles check out Dust 514 for Ps3, otherwsie have fun never playing a game with a true meaning behind the multiplayer. MAG in that department was overrated, it def didnt work as intended, VERY FEW actually stuck to one side and now you can make more then one character to play on all factions.

DUST 514
DUST 514
DUST 514

FOLLOW IT!!![/QUOTE]