**Poll** Brink Beta ?

(tokamak) #101

[QUOTE=Thundermuffin;238085]They want balance and their skill to be rewarded; even my console friends want a game to be balanced and their controller flicking skills to be rewarded and they’re pretty much pub players in every game.

Yeah they want things gone that public players wouldn’t want (ironsights for example), but by them saying that SD could make a cvar for it; plus it isn’t like they have to listen to everything, but the majority of weapon/map balancing would go faster with competitive players because they would take the time to figure everything out thoroughly unlike most people who would play it like a demo and never bother to report anything broken.[/QUOTE]

Not only balanced, but also a levelled playing field is what they want. Competition players want to have the battle to be determined by initial choices (bodytypes, classes, abillities) as little as possible Brink has such factors and they weigh a lot.

I’m still not sure why competition player want certain things the way they do. Some choices, like the ironsight, seems to be arbitrary at best, just a mindset emerged from playing older games. It’s pretty fascinating but by no means a good feature for a tester.

I would sure agree that you need skilled players to test the game, but competition doesn’t automatically equal skilled.

(Thundermuffin) #102

[QUOTE=AnthonyDa;238089]Ho noes, another discussion about the ironsight.

The problem isn’t the IR, but the way it’s implemented ;)[/QUOTE]
Congratulations on trying to troll; I was using it as an example for a point that obviously went over your head.

[QUOTE=.Chris.;238119]Just like the ET:QW beta… oh wait.

No one group has some kind of entitlement to a potential beta, you get idiots from all areas of the gaming community, comp, pub and modding alike, claiming one group is inherently better suited for beta testing is silly, it’s down to the individual.[/QUOTE]
ET:QW beta was open beta, wasn’t it? I wasn’t around for it as I didn’t even know about the game until it’s release month, but looking back it seems like everyone and there mother was able to get in if you had any type of fileplanet account.

In any open beta (aka “pre-order demo” now lol) I’ve been in only the competitive players talked about balance; everyone else complained about stupid things like high settings not being turned on (see BC2 for the biggest example in recent weeks). I haven’t ever heard modders complain about weapon balance either, maybe a bug or two in maps but normally that’s misaligned textures or a missing clip that anyone with two eyes could see, lol.

[QUOTE=tokamak;238163]Not only balanced, but also a levelled playing field is what they want. Competition players want to have the battle to be determined by initial choices (bodytypes, classes, abillities) as little as possible Brink has such factors and they weigh a lot.

I’m still not sure why competition player want certain things the way they do. Some choices, like the ironsight, seems to be arbitrary at best, just a mindset emerged from playing older games. It’s pretty fascinating but by no means a good feature for a tester.

I would sure agree that you need skilled players to test the game, but competition doesn’t automatically equal skilled.[/QUOTE]
They do? I haven’t really heard anyone talk down about the body types and classes (although they have been worried about abilities since they haven’t been talked about in depth). Personally I’m glad to see body types and classes take a higher priority, but when it comes down to the end I shouldn’t automatically lose because I’m a small body type and you’re a heavy type. I should have to work harder to dodge and take my shots (think scout vs heavy in TF2).

Personally I wasn’t around for when games didn’t have iron sights; I was too young, but when I finally got into CS:S I actually liked it. Going back to other games with iron sights feels so slow, but that wasn’t really what I was trying to get at. I was just saying you can please the majority easily while still throwing a bone to the minority sometimes (in cases like the iron sight issue).

You’re right it doesn’t, that’s why I said the top teams. You wouldn’t get complete idiots if you had hubris, mainLine, etc., testing your game. Would they goof off some?

Anyways I was just saying I’d rather play a game tested by competitive players than a game tested by community heroes. TF2 got better when VALVe got the top teams to help them work on things (at least it did to me as I only get irritated by the natacsha’s recent buff now) and I would think that would happen with BRINK.

(Zhou Yu) #103

Just to say, ET:QW had a long closed beta period before the open beta came up, which a fair few of the posters here participated in. Competitive players of a top level in other, similar, games came in towards the end of that process and the beginning of open beta.

My only issue with competitive players as testers is that there can be a temptation, especially with launch tournaments, to play to win rather than playing to test. Setting aside the advisability of launch tournaments, there can be an inherent conflict of interests in any player who is out to predictably win when purportedly testing a beta product.

This of course is not a rule of thumb, clans like kompaniet were awesome bods who were a pleasure to test with, but as things rolled on towards the open beta, the urge to win prevailed over the interests of testing in some groups.

There’s no cut and dry answer, and guesstimating the composition of a new beta group from et:Qw is a dangerous game in and of itself. As with pretty much everything else, its going to be down to SD to pick and choose :p.

(tokamak) #104

That’s the catch, competitive players are a minority who want different things out of a game, the only value they would add is ensuring the needs of this minority are met through optional features.

I still think that the competitive scene is hellbend on making pre-selected factors less relevant so the moment-to-moment playstyle is what defines matches. That’s fine as long as they keep that mindset away from the type of game that will be played the most, the public version.

Valve is not really a good example. As far as I know the TF2 competitive scene plays the game exactly as it is served, unlike ET.

(INF3RN0) #105

[QUOTE=tokamak;238237]That’s the catch, competitive players are a minority who want different things out of a game, the only value they would add is ensuring the needs of this minority are met through optional features.

I still think that the competitive scene is hellbend on making pre-selected factors less relevant so the moment-to-moment playstyle is what defines matches. That’s fine as long as they keep that mindset away from the type of game that will be played the most, the public version.

Valve is not really a good example. As far as I know the TF2 competitive scene plays the game exactly as it is served, unlike ET.[/QUOTE]

Lemme just pop this in her. Competitive players need games to last, meaning the player base must be solid, and the game must be successful. The casual gamer of today enjoys another cheap thrill and then will be ready to move on, which in turn creates some differing priorities when it comes to testing (balance vs graphics/jetpacks/pink hats, etc). Sure some competitive players may be less inclined to give new content a chance in that it might potentially fail, but I think that if you want to play competitively you can’t afford to damage a game. One thing that has to be cleared is that competitive players want a solid game, but pub vs pro is a completely different matter. Competitive matches will tend to always be formatted differently in correlation to the number of players and this will usually require tweaking. This does not however mean that a game has to be exactly the same way or that everyone has to play under the same setup as competitive matches. The kinds of feedback that you would get from a competitive gamer in terms of the pure game is pretty straightforward in terms of balance, exploits, etc. Competitive players like to pub as much as anyone else, and in no way does the pub need to mirror the competitive scene; that was never the intention. If there are general balance issues, they need to be fixed no matter who brings attention to them. In a game designed for 32 people, a 12 or fewer person competitive match is going to require some extra thinking. Take away the league rules and competitive match format, and then you can see what has actually been changed about a game. Most of the time I like to think those changes are there for the benefit of the game as a whole, so that those impatient gamers won’t just get up and abandon something with the potential to be better.

Those issues you listed are only under scrutiny because they have a ring of importance when you say them aloud. The goal is to give everyone an equal opportunity in a game, and then leave it up to teamwork and player skill to determine the outcome. If something might not work, then in no means does it need to be trashed, but there is definitely middle ground. It is just upsetting when you get a huge demand to dump the respawn simply because people are frustrating other players by denying them a kill (it doesn’t affect the outcome at all). Most non-competitive players find no value in the respawn, while a competitive gamer would laugh in your face for saying that. Just one example, but it shows a big difference in mentality when it comes to making decisions for different types of gamers.

(Thundermuffin) #106

[QUOTE=tokamak;238237]That’s the catch, competitive players are a minority who want different things out of a game, the only value they would add is ensuring the needs of this minority are met through optional features.

I still think that the competitive scene is hellbend on making pre-selected factors less relevant so the moment-to-moment playstyle is what defines matches. That’s fine as long as they keep that mindset away from the type of game that will be played the most, the public version.

Valve is not really a good example. As far as I know the TF2 competitive scene plays the game exactly as it is served, unlike ET.[/QUOTE]
I’m so confused on how the only value is they would make sure the minority is supported; comp. players would be better at balancing weapons and abilities than a pubstar or some forum hero. I’m sick of playing games that are balanced to what the biggest forum whiners want and a lot of the time that’s all the ETQW community forum was and a reason I rarely ever came on.

Sure they’ll bring up iron sights and stuff, but it isn’t like SD has to do it; at least they’ll know what the people who will play their game for years to come want and sometimes great features come from the minority who think a little bit different from the pub players.

Yes they care about post-launch tournaments, but you gotta give teams the benefit of the doubt that they actually care about the balance because this could be the last chance for this time of gameplay to “make it mainstream.” Wolfenstein bombed, ET:QW died fast, W:ET isn’t as popular as it once was, and there’s no way in heck you’ll see RtCW making a big jump back now. So if BRINK fails you all have no game like it. Plus if the game doesn’t make it, there’s no tournaments therefore they wasted their time (LOST-style flashback to ET:QW…).

Nope TF2 is a completely valid example; CEVO bans weapons, damage spread is off, classes are limited and crits are off. The only difference is they don’t play many custom maps because competitive maps are pretty much all official or get picked up by VALVe.

Either way Zhou’s right, it’s up to SD. I just wanted to state my opinion on how it should be done because I didn’t agree with anyone’s previous opinions.

(AnthonyDa) #107

[quote=tokamak;238237]
Valve is not really a good example. As far as I know the TF2 competitive scene plays the game exactly as it is served, unlike ET.[/quote]
Then you got no idea of what you are talking about :slight_smile:

(Senethro) #108

No they wouldn’t. Competitive players are just as superstitious and prone to picking the wrong aspect to change as public.

Sure they’ll bring up iron sights and stuff, but it isn’t like SD has to do it; at least they’ll know what the people who will play their game for years to come want and sometimes great features come from the minority who think a little bit different from the pub players.

Comp players only buy the game once, same as anyone else.

Yes they care about post-launch tournaments, but you gotta give teams the benefit of the doubt that they actually care about the balance because this could be the last chance for this time of gameplay to “make it mainstream.” Wolfenstein bombed, ET:QW died fast, W:ET isn’t as popular as it once was, and there’s no way in heck you’ll see RtCW making a big jump back now. So if BRINK fails you all have no game like it. Plus if the game doesn’t make it, there’s no tournaments therefore they wasted their time (LOST-style flashback to ET:QW…).

Its never going to be mainstream. Hell, any FPS on the PC isn’t going to be mainstream!

Also, I doubt comp players would behave differently in a Brink beta than the ETQW one. They weren’t so useful.

(Thundermuffin) #109

[QUOTE=Senethro;238264]No they wouldn’t. Competitive players are just as superstitious and prone to picking the wrong aspect to change as public.

Comp players only buy the game once, same as anyone else.

Its never going to be mainstream. Hell, any FPS on the PC isn’t going to be mainstream!

Also, I doubt comp players would behave differently in a Brink beta than the ETQW one. They weren’t so useful.[/QUOTE]
INFERNO really hit the nail on the head.

Heck all I’m waiting on is for SD to put out a collector’s edition and they have my 80 ~ 100$, I just really hate it when balance is done for the worst players instead of actually balancing it against the other guns.

(Apples) #110

[QUOTE=Thundermuffin;238346]INFERNO really hit the nail on the head.

Heck all I’m waiting on is for SD to put out a collector’s edition and they have my 80 ~ 100$, I just really hate it when balance is done for the worst players instead of actually balancing it against the other guns.[/QUOTE]

I see where you are coming from, but many comp players use the beta to do their own strats and stuff, perfect their aim in advance, and dont care to report anything except for “this ironsight sux”…

Not everyone instead, but read chris’s comment, he got it prettu true (as usual)

Now we should take a room

peace

(INF3RN0) #111

[QUOTE=Apples;238354]I see where you are coming from, but many comp players use the beta to do their own strats and stuff, perfect their aim in advance, and dont care to report anything except for “this ironsight sux”…

Not everyone instead, but read chris’s comment, he got it prettu true (as usual)

Now we should take a room

peace[/QUOTE]

And I like how they would go and cry about how the game is dead and broken afterwords lol. Those aren’t comp players, dem iz nubz.

(Senethro) #112

Most competitive players are nubz. They may be able to move a bit and aim a bit but you shouldn’t mistake that for being able or even willing to help improve a game in beta.

(Qhullu) #113

not to open this can of worms again, but here are some of my thoughts on ironsight as a pub player since i don’t remember writing about it before, and i feel like wasting time while waiting for the good games to start in the Asus summer QL comp (link to stream):

i think it’s mostly about the fact that zoom isn’t really necessary when aiming with a mouse no matter how long the distance between you and who you are shooting at is (if visibility is good).

if the only way to reduce the spread of your weapon is to use ironsight, you are kinda forced to use zoom, which means you need to play using two different sensitivity values for your mouse. for example in Quake Live some “pros” use zoom when railing in some situations (like when they can see across the map through a small opening and expect the enemy to show up there for example) and some never do, it’s a personal preference. obviously zoom helps in long distance shooting because it effectively makes long range shots into mid range shots and enemy models are relatively static when they are far away, so you place your crosshair on top of them, zoom and keep it zoomed while shooting. but zoom can also make mid range fights into short range fights, and if the movement speed of the player models is already fast, using zoom makes it even faster. (for an extreme example, 45 degree fov would make the effective speed of the player model on your screen twice that of what it would be with 90 degree fov). so being forced to use ironsight/zoom at a distance where tracking aim on good dodgers is already challenging due to their on-screen speed makes it x% more challenging (where x is fov/(zoom fov)*100).

so basically, if ironsight is your only means of reducing spread, and if the non-ironsighted spread is so large that using ironsight in mid range fights gives you a big advantage, and if the on-screen speed of the playermodels is fast enough to make non-ironsighted mid range tracking aim a challenge when fighting against good dodgers. depending on how much zoom it has, ironsight can make mid range fights awkward, especially for people who prefer playing with low sensitivity (most effective solution might be switching back and forth between the two modes during a fight for example).

i don’t think it will be a big problem in Brink as the ironsight zoom seems to be pretty subtle (though different weapons having different levels of zoom may complicate things), and i hear the non-ironsighted spread is pretty tight, but i don’t really see what the problem with having the option to use crouch to get the same spread reduction without the zoom would be. but maybe the problem is with me, i don’t mind ironsight in camp heavy cover based shooters, but in games where being able to effectively move and shoot at the same time gives you a big advantage, having to switch between the two zoom levels (one of which makes you move more slowly) only because of game mechanics feels a little cumbersome and distracting, in a word unnecessary.

(II Captain K II) #114

" but maybe the problem is with me, i don’t mind ironsight in camp heavy cover based shooters, but in games where being able to effectively move and shoot at the same time gives you a big advantage, having to switch between the two zoom levels (one of which makes you move more slowly) only because of game mechanics feels a little cumbersome and distracting, in a word unnecessary."

This. The exact reason I think ironsights remove the skill from FPS’s. They slow down the gameplay whenever firefights occur, and it makes the game a test of reflexes (who can bring up the sights faster) or in the worst case makes the game a campfest where moving around puts you at constant risk (call of duty). I haven’t been keeping up with the news about this game, so I don’t know how many bullets it will take to bring someone down, but I hope this game doesn’t go modern with the 2-3 bullets kill trend I’ve been seeing lately. The decision of a firefight ought to be determined by who can move/and shoot accurately, not who sees who first, IMO.

(wickedheadshot) #115

there sould be a beta

(wickedheadshot) #116

there sould be a good beta becuse im wating to play the full games

(BioSnark) #117

If the game isn’t balanced a couple months before release then SD should do a beta. Otherwise they should just make a demo if they want to demo the product… which they should if it’s significantly different from what’s already on the market.

(Kinjal) #118

For today , i dont think it will be a PC beta , maybe x-box 360 beta or sum sort of it, coz the game prime target is console market. SD very well know what PC users want , ETQW - “PC version of the game had an average score of 84% based on 55 reviews” “According to NPD group’s top 10 best selling PC game charts, it managed to take the #1 spot.” -wiki, but - “Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 reviews for the game were generally much less positive, with IGN giving the 360 version 6.1 and the PlayStation 3 version 5.3”. So who da hell need pc and a small group of hardcore SD fans, console market is a much much bigger, insane amount of money. So they have Richard Ham(Fable2) for making a way on console. So why they need a pc beta? Im sured SD allready know what they gona hear from pc users – slow speed, auto controls, small maps.

(Apples) #119

Cant care less bout small maps as it’ll prolly be ET’ish style, but +1 and +1 for the 2 other concerns!

(LeMisanthrope) #120

No need for beta. Linux + splash damage game = pwn. How could it possibly go wrong?