Well, they could make a character who has an active ability called slide - and have it knockback and stun targets hit by it. That type of skill would probably fit on a close-range covert.
As for all this gun “Porn” I am seeing here… No - I hated that aspect of Brink a lot… Micromanagement of gun parts is about as entertaining as micromanaging a fantasy football/baseball team… complete bore.
Brink wasn’t the first game to have sliding but we are currently investigating it (among other things) for inclusion XT.
Dont be so happy Bomba, he said they are looking at it, he didnt say we will have it 
But I really want to see a better movement system! 
I read " Slide … (among others things) for inclusion " ! the rest of the sentence is an option 
Indeed, we’re only investigating at the moment. After that stage we need to figure out the development costs and prioritise it accordingly.
Its offtopic here, but any infos about the engi (mobile wall) and the medic (revive gun) layout?
Wasn’t a fan of Brink’s style of sliding tbh. Hope you make some major tweaks if you plan on implementing.
[QUOTE=BAMFana;476195]Can’t say I like this weapon customization concept. In my opinion, SD’s manpower would be better spent making more mercs, instead of adding weapon customization that will inevitably make it harder to differentiate the mercs.
I much prefer that all changes to the player character’s abilities and stats are per game and not persistent. By “per game” I mean temporary, as in; they would reset to 0 after a match ends. Adding silencers, red dot sights, scopes, whatever, as level up rewards that can be selected is more dynamic and better for gameplay than having to choose them before starting a match. When they’re per game, each team has a chance to adjust to what the other team is doing, whereas persistent customization is essentially guess work – you try to guess what the other team will be using before the match starts.
I think a simple rule to follow should be to never add persistent customization that has an effect on the players’ ingame performance. When in doubt, copy Dota 2.
I don’t think a game like BLR can ever have a significant competitive scene. It’s an inherently casual game because of significant pay2win elements and uninspired game modes. While I agree with you that their customization system is a cool gimmick, it doesn’t do the gameplay any favors in my opinion. It’s essentially a guessing game where you’re trying to guess which customizations you need to gain an advantage over the other team – which invariably means topping up your health until you can survive <x> bullets from <y> gun setup. Not much depth in that.[/QUOTE]
My issue with that approach is the match will never be balanced until everyone has every upgrade. I don’t see the skill in that as the game can snowball with 1 mistake, similar to MOBAs. I believe that is actually a bad quality about that genre.
P2W is subjective. For me it was not pay to win. You could get every gun/attachment with in-game currency. The ones you couldn’t buy I believe you could rent with in-game currency as well so it was always available.
Now that you mention it, you’re right here. I specifically recall making my builds between 218 - 234 hp to take 1 more shot vs specific gun builds. However, SD could make the customization better and learn from the mistakes of others. I wouldn’t call it a gimmick, just a first of a kind system that needed some tweaks. When I played there were multiple viable builds, 48, 50, and 54 dmg AR. 42, 45, and 48 dmg SMG. It wasn’t like Brink where it was CARB or GTFO. I can see your point though.
I agree as well with the fact I would much rather have the focus be on mercs. If they do that though, the mercs really need to stand out because they aren’t standing out at all for me at the moment.
Yeah, I agree with you that there’s no clear cut way of determining whether or not something is truly p2w. There’s a sliding scale between “money decides all” and “money has no effect”, and the p2w label has to be placed somewhere along it. My personal experience with BLR was that the time required to earn enough in-game currency to buy or rent enough receivers and attachments to avoid having a competitive disadvantage was higher than the vast majority of players were able to put in. For me, that qualifies the game as pay to win.
I agree in substance with the rest of your post. I would never claim that it’s impossible to design a perfect customization system. I feel that a pure merc system has a much greater likelyhood of succeeding, however, as well providing greater dividends for organized play. Certainly agree with you that a lot of work is needed in fleshing out such a system, and I believe that an extensive per-game progression system is the key to giving such a system a dynamic element – as it does in Dota 2 and LoL.
Unrelated to your post, but this is why I disagree with SD’s recently stated goal of reducing map times to 15 minutes on average. At that length, per-game progression loses much of its value. Even without per-game progression, the two current short maps are very underwhelming compared to their longer versions, and I think the alpha players are fairly unanimous in their dislike of them. My theory is that the complaints about maps lasting too long in the alpha have been a result of a lack of dynamic content – namely per-game progression – rather than the actual length/size of the maps themselves. Trying to solve the issue by reducing map times therefore seems to be a case of treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
Ideally I would like to see a new game mode added; one that uses “victory points” as the victory condition rather than time as it is currently. It would have symmetric victory conditions (no defined defender/attacker teams) rather than the currently asymmetric win conditions (attacker team vs. defender team). A creative re-design of “capture point/domination” game modes from other games could be amazing.
Purely spitballing, consider this: A map with three static control points, each rewarding the team controlling it with a steady flow of victory points. It also has a fourth objective that spits out <x> amount of carryables at regular intervals, each of which can be returned to either teams spawn (static spawn locations on each side of the map) for a significant immediate victory point boost for that team. The effect of this fourth objective should be compared to the effect of Roshan in Dota 2 or Baron Nashor in LoL, in that it should galvanize teams to engage in direct conflict over it, and force them to prepare while the objective respawn timer is in effect, thus making for more dynamic gameplay. In addition, there could be a multitude of side objectives that change the flow of the map in some way, such as blowing up walls or hacking doors to open up new paths. I can also imagine some complications/twists on how control points are captured – perhaps one is a satelite uplink that can be hacked by either team, while each of the other two inherently belong to one of the teams and can be destroyed, until repaired, by the other team by planting and exploding a bomb.
I can’t see it happening then, given that you are now in a deal with Nexon that screams SD has not the coffers do whittle time and money on it. Plus given the company stance with how the maps can’t be changed, and given the current maps would have to support it all but confirms this in my mind.
(I would like to be proven wrong however)
[QUOTE=Raviolay;476438]I can’t see it happening then, given that you are now in a deal with Nexon that screams SD has not the coffers do whittle time and money on it. Plus given the company stance with how the maps can’t be changed, and given the current maps would have to support it all but confirms this in my mind.
(I would like to be proven wrong however)[/QUOTE]
I don’t think they’d have to drastically change the maps to implement slide… Overreacting much?
[QUOTE=BAMFana;476433]
Purely spitballing, consider this: A map with three static control points, each rewarding the team controlling it with a steady flow of victory points. It also has a fourth objective that spits out <x> amount of carryables at regular intervals, each of which can be returned to either teams spawn (static spawn locations on each side of the map) for a significant immediate victory point boost for that team. The effect of this fourth objective should be compared to the effect of Roshan in Dota 2 or Baron Nashor in LoL, in that it should galvanize teams to engage in direct conflict over it, and force them to prepare while the objective respawn timer is in effect, thus making for more dynamic gameplay. In addition, there could be a multitude of side objectives that change the flow of the map in some way, such as blowing up walls or hacking doors to open up new paths. I can also imagine some complications/twists on how control points are captured – perhaps one is a satelite uplink that can be hacked by either team, while each of the other two inherently belong to one of the teams and can be destroyed, until repaired, by the other team by planting and exploding a bomb.[/QUOTE]
That would require one hell of a balanced map. Any sort of random element removes skill from a game. What happens if the item were to spawn closer to one team than the other? I know it’s just a throwing it out there idea, but any style of domination turns into a who controls x spawn area better to hold 2 sites the longest. I am much more of a fan of doc run, but I’m not even sure if XT has the speed or map style to accommodate that mode. They’re too flat and linear.
It wouldn’t be a random spawn location, it would be in the same place every time and the respawn timers would be visible to both teams – same as rosh and nashor. And yeah, agree with you that it requires a fine mapper to pull off, but I think something along those lines could be exciting. I agree that doc runs are alright, a lot better than lengthy escort segments.
I don’t think you should be able to have both foregrip and muzzle break at the same time, one or the other
[QUOTE=Smooth;476024]My personal opinion:
[ul]
[li]It means we have another variable with which to differentiate weapons[/li][/ul][/QUOTE]
I think tbh that this is for SD by far the major reason. I can understand it but it is a too unelegant (and player patience abusing) method, compared to being more creative and imaginative and coming up with a bunch of really innovative and distinguishable weapon designa without attachments. Please no, the Brink’s attachment thing was a fail and I don’t see how one may improve that by longer testing times and stats.
BUT, if SD gives back all chars a nade with attachments, I would have to accept the general idea of weapon attachments 
Tradeoff pls?
Oh and to slide haters - why? If they implement a proper cooldown on it, it’s a nice feature.
I don’t understand your objection to attachments.
I like a simple tiny red dot for sights, some people prefer a dot with ring, some like mildot, others traditional crosshairs or illuminated reticule sights, why not give them the option to purchase their favorite ?
you can still do things to change it up by incorporating reality, holo sights pass more light than reflex sights, charge more